Nat Hentoff and the US Constitution

At the bottom of the Drudge Page is a long list of pundits, authors and commentators. I rarely use that list but today I scanned down the list to see if there might be anyone whose opinion I actually care to read. I passed many of the old names who I have lost respect for. Then I came to Nat Hentoff.

Nat Hentoff's reverence for the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights has been the career-long flavoring of his writings. Freedom of speech seems, from my scant readings and knowledge, to be a major focus of Hentoff. If I remember correctly, he defended the Left's freedom of dissent clear back in the 70s, and perhaps earlier.

Now Hentoff still defends free speech as the Left tries to choke off all dissent through the tactic of shaming and Political Correctness as policy.

Americans are uneducated in the constitution. I think this is purposeful, and evil. Hentoff points to a survey:

"The results of the 2015 “State of the First Amendment” survey, produced annually by the Newseum Institute, reflect that too many Americans know too little about the Constitution and its relevance to their everyday lives. The survey asked 1,002 adult Americans the following question: “As you may know, the First Amendment is part of the U.S. Constitution. Can you name any of the specific rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment?”

The First Amendment to the Constitution – “The First Freedom,” as the title to my 1988 book describes it – is part of the basic civics and history curriculum we expect every student to be taught in every school in the United States. It says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Yet the Newseum Institute’s survey – which has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.2 percentage points – found that only 10 percent of respondents knew the First Amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. Only l9 percent knew that it guarantees freedom of religion, while only 2 percent were able to say it guarantees the right to petition. And 33 percent of the respondents – representing a third of the American public – were unable to name a single right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Think of that: one out of three Americans don't know what the First Amendment means to American rights.

I have copies of the Declaration of Independence/Constitution/Bill of Rights on my desk, within my reach. I know that is likely radical and atypical. Especially when "typical" equates to ignorance. Hentoff goes on to recommend a book:

"The arrival in August of an updated, expanded edition of Linda Monk’s book, “The Words We Live By” (Hachette Books), reminded me of my initial rush of enthusiasm when I first wrote about it in the Washington Post column I had at the time.

Monk subtitled her book “Your Annotated Guide to the Constitution,” but it is actually a swinging adventure story of how Americans came to define themselves as a nation through the struggle to keep the Constitution functioning as the guarantor of our most fundamental liberties.

Without exaggeration, I am convinced that this book should be taught in every classroom and be on every citizen’s reading list as an essential reference manual for evaluating candidates in the upcoming 2016 elections."

And this:

"“The Words We Live By” makes even the most complex Supreme Court cases understandable to the average reader by integrating expert legal analysis with compelling storytelling and popular culture references. Monk has updated the revised edition with almost 100 new cases that tackle topical issues such as the legal battles over Obamacare, same sex-marriage, campaign finance reform, gun rights, NSA surveillance, abortion and affirmative action. The legal cases are made relevant to the reader through stories about people at the forefront of these issues, among them NSA surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden, George Takei (Mr. Sulu of “Star Trek”) and the families of the Newtown shooting victims.

The revised edition of “The Words We Live By” comes not a moment too soon.

My copy will be here Thursday.

Too Good To Miss

Go there:

The Raj Koothrappali Approach to Constitutional Law

If there is no US Constitutional justification anymore, then officials who swear-in on it are illegitimate.

If there is no basis for law, then there is only "raw power".

Then Jeffersonian patriotic blood must be spilled.

Gov. Abbot (Texas) to the Rescue

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott calls for Convention of States to take back states’ rights

"Gov. Greg Abbott, aiming to spark a national conversation about states’ rights, said Friday that he wants Texas to lead the call for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution and wrest power from a federal government “run amok.”

“If we are going to fight for, protect and hand on to the next generation, the freedom that [President] Reagan spoke of … then we have to take the lead to restore the rule of law in America,” Abbott said during a speech at the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s Policy Orientation that drew raucous applause from the conservative audience. He said he will ask lawmakers to pass a bill authorizing Texas to join other states calling for a Convention of States.

Along with the speech, Abbott released a nearly 70-page plan – part American civics lesson, part anti-Obama diatribe – detailing nine proposed constitutional amendments that he said would unravel the federal government’s decades-long power grab and restore authority over economic regulation and other matters to the states.

“The irony for our generation is that the threat to our Republic doesn’t come just from foreign enemies, it comes, in part, from our very own leaders,” Abbott said in a speech that took aim at President Obama, Congress and the judicial branch.

The proposal for a convention, which has been gaining traction among some among conservative Republicans, comes just as the GOP presidential candidates begin to make forays into Texas ahead of the March primary election. The state, with 155 delegates up for grabs, will certainly be a key player in the party’s nominating process.

Abbott hasn’t endorsed a candidate, though the field includes Sen. Ted Cruz, who was one of Abbott’s top employees when the governor was attorney general. Abbott is likely hoping to boost his national profile within the GOP as eyes turn to the state.

This week, presidential contender U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., published a piece in USA Today endorsing the idea of a convention to amend the Constitution and restore limited government. In April, 27 active petitions had been filed with Congress seeking a convention to amend the constitution to require that Congress adopt a balanced budget.

Congress would be forced to act once 34 states joined the effort. So far, Cruz hasn’t endorsed the idea."

Here's the Plan:

Abbott, in his plan, dismisses many of those criticisms, saying that he would call for a limited scope to the convention.

The plan lays out nine specific proposed amendments that would:

Prohibit congress from regulating activity that occurs wholly within one state.

Require Congress to balance its budget.

Prohibit administrative agencies from creating federal law.

Prohibit administrative agencies from pre-empting state law.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Require a seven-justice super-majority vote for U.S. Supreme Court decisions that invalidate a democratically enacted law

Restore the balance of power between the federal and state governments by limiting the former to the powers expressly delegated to it in the Constitution.

Give state officials the power to sue in federal court when federal officials overstep their bounds.

Allow a two-thirds majority of the states to override a federal law or regulation.

A convention, Abbott wrote, would force the federal government to “take the Constitution seriously again.”

“The only true downside comes from doing nothing and allowing the federal government to continue ignoring the very document that created it,” Abbott wrote.

The Tenth Amendment should have been sufficient; it just needs an enforcement clause. Maybe the states need to march their National Guards on DC. However, overriding the Supreme Court with the voice of the people is also a necessity. When the Supreme Court is packed with one-world, fascist Leftists, there is no hope of constitutional stability in the nation.

Why The US Constitution is NOT a Suicide Pact

This is long, but very worth the read.

MISSTATING THE CONSTITUTION:
Glenn Reynolds

"The mainstream media and politicians across the political spectrum are having a field day excoriating Donald Trump for his statements that he would ban Muslims from entering the country. Glenn has already posted Eric Posner’s piece that explains why limiting immigration–to any category whatsoever, whether it be race, religion, national origin or otherwise–is within the “plenary power” of Congress, and hence, perfectly constitutional, as the Supreme Court has long recognized.

The latest iteration of PC-induced apoplexy over Trump’s comments comes in the form of comparing restricting Muslim entry to the Japanese internment camps during World War II. But once again, commentators on both the right and left seem to have conveniently forgotten that the Supreme Court upheld the internment of individuals of Japanese ancestry, including American citizens, in Korematsu v. United States (1944). In another case upholding the imposition of a curfew on Japanese-Americans, Hirabayashi v. United States (1943), the Court explained the constitutional basis for such actions:

The war power of the national government is “the power to wage war successfully.” . . . Since the Constitution commits to the Executive and to Congress the exercise of the war power in all the vicissitudes and conditions of warfare, it has necessarily given them wide scope for the exercise of judgment and discretion in determining the nature and extent of the threatened injury or danger and in the selection of the means for resisting it. Where, as they did here, the conditions call for the exercise of judgment and discretion and for the choice of means by those branches of the Government on which the Constitution has placed the responsibility of warmaking, it is not for any court to sit in review of the wisdom of their action or substitute it judgment for theirs. . . .

The alternative, which appellant insists must be accepted, is for the military authorities to impose the curfew on all citizens within the military area, or on none. In a case of threatened danger requiring prompt action, it is a choice between inflicting obviously needless hardship on the many or sitting passive and unresisting in the presence of the threat. We think that constitutional government, in time of war, is not so powerless and does not compel so hard a choice if those charged with the responsibility of our national defense have reasonable ground for believing that the threat is real. . . .

There is support for the view that social, economic and political conditions which have prevailed since the close of the last century, when the Japanese began to come to this country in substantial numbers, have intensified their solidarity and have in large measure prevented their assimilation as an integral part of the white population. In addition, large numbers of children of Japanese parentage are sent to Japanese language schools outside the regular hours of public schools in the locality. Some of these schools are generally believed to be sources of Japanese nationalistic propaganda, cultivating allegiance to Japan. Considerable numbers, estimated to be approximately 10,000, of American-born children of Japanese parentage have been sent to Japan for all or a part of their education. . . .

Viewing these data in all their aspects, Congress and the Executive could reasonably have concluded that these conditions have encouraged the continued attachment of members of this group to Japan and Japanese institutions. These are only some of the many considerations which those charged with the responsibility for the national defense could take into account in determining the nature and extent of the danger of espionage and sabotage in the event of invasion or air raid attack. The extent of that danger could be definitely known only after the event, and after it was too late to meet it. Whatever views we may entertain regarding the loyalty to this country of the citizens of Japanese ancestry, we cannot reject as unfounded the judgment of the military authorities and of Congress that there were disloyal members of that population, whose number and strength could not be precisely and quickly ascertained. . . .

Because racial discriminations are in most circumstances irrelevant, and therefore prohibited, it by no means follows that, in dealing with the perils of war, Congress and the Executive are wholly precluded from taking into account those facts and circumstances which are relevant to measures for our national defense and for the successful prosecution of the war, and which may, in fact, place citizens of one ancestry in a different category from others. “We must never forget that it is a constitution we are expounding,” “a constitution intended to endure for ages to come, and, consequently, to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs.” The adoption by Government, in the crisis of war and of threatened invasion, of measures for the public safety, based upon the recognition of facts and circumstances which indicate that a group of one national extraction may menace that safety more than others, is not wholly beyond the limits of the Constitution, and is not to be condemned merely because, in other and in most circumstances, racial distinctions are irrelevant.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact. Protecting national security is a “compelling” government interest that should survive the strictest of judicial scrutiny. The only open constitutional question, it seems to me, is whether today’s Supreme Court would change its mind about these pragmatic realities, or instead sacrifice commonsense national security measures to the God of Political Correctness.

Trump’s statements about Muslim immigration/entry do not even rise to the level of World War II’s internment of Japanese Americans. His less intrusive measures–aimed at individuals who are outside US borders, not US citizens, and reasonably viewed as a potential threat to US national security interests during a War on Radical Islamic Terror–are clearly constitutional. Korematsu and Hirabayashi also suggest that even more severe measures against Muslims present within the country–including US citizens–could also be constitutional if narrowly tailored to further compelling national security interests."
[All emphasis added]

In other words, Islamists currently in the USA, even if citizens, may constitutionally be interred for the sake of the safety of non-Islamic American citizens and the pursuit of the war against Islamic hegemony over western cultures.