Ohio Rep. Wenstrup Rips Woke Bureaucrats for Slapping ‘Harmful Content’ Warning on U.S. Constitution

Wednesday, after signing on to a letter sent by 44 Republican lawmakers to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), which recently placed “harmful content” labels on historical documents including the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, Rep. Brad Wenstrup (R-OH-02) blasted the federal government organization.

“We must stand together against those who wish to destroy the foundation of our American values with their ‘woke’ agenda,” he told The Ohio Star. “We must educate future generations on all aspects of our past – celebrating the good and acknowledging our failures. Those who seek to weaken the timeless truths and foundational texts seek only to erase our shared history. We cannot stand by silently.”

Read More

Pennsylvania Congressman Lamb Silent on National Archives Labeling Constitution for ‘Harmful Language’

The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) has slapped “Harmful Language” warnings on online displays of American founding documents, including the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution—and U.S. Rep. Conor Lamb (D-PA-17) is keeping quiet about it.

The Star News Network emailed Lamb’s press office Friday to ascertain his view of the matter. Neither the congressman—who recently announced a bid for U.S. Senate—nor his staff have replied.

Read More

Commentary: How States Could Assume Abandoned Responsibilities of the National Government

The COVID pandemic has witnessed the exercise of state “police powers” on a scale and scope unprecedented in America’s peacetime history. Out of fear of contagion, massive amounts of private property in the form of shops, restaurants, bars, and other businesses were peremptorily seized and shuttered. The rights of landlords to collect rents and evict tenants were suspended. The ability of people to cross from one state to another was hobbled by regulations, quarantines, and delays. And most of this was accomplished by governors and mayors acting by decree, with only the most tenuous of statutory authorizations.

Read More

Commentary: The Case for the Unconstitutionality of Abortion

In the April issue of the conservative journal First Things, the esteemed natural law philosopher John Finnis wrote an essay titled “Abortion Is Unconstitutional.” Finnis’ basic argument was that the traditional conservative or originalist stance on abortion and the Supreme Court’s infamous 1973 Roe v. Wade decision—namely, that the Constitution is “silent” on the matter and that it is properly an issue for states to decide among themselves—is both morally insufficient and legally dubious.

According to Finnis, unborn children are properly understood as “persons” under the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, and state-level homicide laws, therefore, cannot discriminate by protecting live people but not unborn people. The upshot under this logic is that overturning Roe and its 1992 successor, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, would not merely return abortion regulation to the ambits of the various states, as earlier conservative legal titans such as the late Justice Antonin Scalia long argued. Rather, it would mandate banning the bloody practice nationwide.

Read More

December 8 Deadline for Selection of Electors Does Not Apply to Disputed States, Amistad Project Says

In a white paper released Friday, The Amistad Project of the non-partisan Thomas More Society is arguing that the current Electoral College deadlines are both arbitrary and a direct impediment to states’ obligations to investigate disputed elections.

The research paper breaks down the history of Electoral College deadlines and makes clear that this election’s Dec. 8 and Dec. 14 deadlines for the selection of Electors, the assembly of the Electoral College, and the tallying of its votes, respectively, are not only elements of a 72-year old federal statute with no Constitutional basis, but are also actively preventing the states from fulfilling their constitutional — and ethical — obligation to hold free and fair elections. Experts believe that the primary basis for these dates was to provide enough time to affect the presidential transition of power, a concern which is obsolete in the age of internet and air travel.

Read More

Commentary: Turn to the Founders to Remind Ourselves of What We Stand to Lose

Founding Fathers

In just about 70 days, you and I will be called upon to decide the fate of the American Republic. Make no mistake, this is no ordinary election. American voters have not faced such a momentous choice since an earlier generation was presented with the Constitution and called upon to decide its fate. The vote to ratify the Constitution established a new regime, the amazingly successful American Republic, which showed the world new possibilities for liberty and prosperity and set a standard still unmatched by any country in the history of the world.

A vote for the Democratic Party this time is a vote for regime change as surely as the original vote for the Constitution was a vote for regime change.

Read More

Commentary: The Migrant ‘Caravan’ Marching Northbound To Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, and What The U.S. Constitution Has To Say About It

The United States Constitution does contain a few references relative to immigration and naturalization as well as to persons seeking to enter the United States in contravention of its laws — whether violently or non-violently and whether singly or in the form of a human tsunami. In its Article I,…

Read More

Ohio Group Adds Legal Firepower to Case Against CFPB Once Headed by Richard Cordray

An Ohio think tank filed an amicus brief Tuesday in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court that seeks to rein in the power of the consumer watchdog agency once headed by Ohio Democratic gubernatorial candidate Richard Cordray. In the case, plaintiffs argue that the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, created by former President Obama and…

Read More