Two Amendments Attacked – USA Gov Policy

What many have portrayed as an attack on the Second Amendment can now be seen clearly as an attack on the First.

While the debate over gun regulation has been longstanding, the current iteration involves not only an attempt to wrest legal weapons out of the hands of law-abiding citizens, but to prevent them from even speaking their mind about the issue. The assault extends from both partisan states attorneys general to the White House itself.

President Joe Biden has vowed to “defeat” the National Rifle Association. Note the language. It doesn’t talk about opposing the organization’s goal of allowing citizens to fully practice their Second Amendment rights, but to vanquish a constitutionally protected alliance of citizens from expressing their opinion. That’s a vital distinction.

New York State Attorney General Letitia James, who famously found various excuses to sue the Trump Administration, has filed a lawsuit seeking to dissolve” the NRA. The excuse, or rather the grounds, specifically charges the NRA as a whole, as well as Executive Vice-President Wayne LaPierre, former Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Wilson “Woody” Phillips, former Chief of Staff and the Executive Director of General Operations Joshua Powell, and Corporate Secretary and General Counsel John Frazer with failing to manage the NRA’s funds and failing to follow numerous state and federal laws, contributing to the loss of more than $64 million in just three years for the NRA.

The use of questionable law suits to silence those opposing leftist policies is a growing trend. Dominion Voting Systems, which is part of the controversy surrounding the 2020 election, has brought an action seeking an astounding $1.3 billion defamation action against “My Pillow” founder Mike Lindell, who has publicly stated his belief that Dominion’s machines were biased against the then-incumbent president. Donald Trump and Rudolph Giuliani have been similarly assaulted.

For its part, the NRA has countersued Letitia James, on the grounds that she is weaponizing her position to silence and intimidate those with differing views. The pro-Second Amendment group states that the NY Attorney General lacks not only the authority to take the action, but is engaging in an action simply out of political partisanship.

This sounds too good to be true…is it? We need to sildenafil cost sit and pray. Is this another name for sildenafil in usa medicines? For some people Kamagra is just another name for the same medication and it has been approved by the FDA, so is safe to consume if you follow the dosage instructions and precautions. Fertility gains for female: For female beleaguered with menopausal and menstrual problems, taking maca tablets or pills or maca supplements on a online viagra sales frequent basis can assist them to get rid of such pain. In both Western and Traditional Chinese Medicine (where it is known as “gobo”) burdock has been long purchase sildenafil used to increase the sexual capacity and promote vitality and vigour in men and women, thereby forming part of Sfoorti capsules.

Daniel Payne, writing for The Federalist, notes that “For quite some time the American Left has been busy turning American law into a partisan political weapon. Various progressive factions have undertaken a disparate and uncoordinated but still ideologically homogeneous effort to criminalize dissent using the courts and statutory law.”

The abuse of legal process has long been recognized as an offense against justice. As explained by the Stimmel law firm “The turmoil and expense of litigation can cause significant harm in and of itself and may be a weapon to injure another even if the underlying case allegedly justifying the action is not considered viable by the very party bringing it. The case, itself, becomes the tool used to harm another.” The standard for bringing a case to court is not particularly high. Lawyers like to joke that a ham sandwich can be sued for lacking mayonnaise.

Well-funded leftist organizations have taken to the practice with true vigor. More distressingly, however, has been the enthusiasm with which elected officials have done so. Martin Morse Wooster, writing for the Capital Research Center notes that “Aiming to reshape society, state attorneys general wield ever-expanding powers over private corporations, foundations and nonprofits. Their activities–too often motivated by ideology and politics–frequently undermine the very institutions they are supposed to protect.”

Direct assaults on the Second Amendment have not been particularly popular nor have the numerous attempts been effective. The misuse of the legal process to weaken those supporting the right to bear arms is an attempt to change that.

Illustration: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Why the Electoral College is Vital

Proposals for radical alterations in the way Americans vote are dangerous concepts that would have dramatic consequences for the nation and its Constitution. Some, such as ranked choice voting, are an unblushing bid to prop up fringe, leftist candidates. Others. if adopted, would essentially disunite the nation and overturn its Constitution. As they consistently have after each election loss, Democrat spokespeople have flooded the airwaves with complaints about the Electoral College. Why, they ask, can’t we have a “popular vote,” and let it be done with. Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution, it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system. The National Archives notes that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The answer is as simple as the name of the country: The United States of America. The incredibly successful nation created almost two and a half centuries ago was a union of separate states. Fresh off of dealing with a monarch, it was intentionally set up that way to both prevent the possibility of having an all-powerful dictator, and to prevent larger states from bullying smaller ones. Abolishing the electoral college would essentially disenfranchise smaller states from having any say in the presidency. Indeed, even less populated areas of large states would lose influence. A collection of large cities, (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Phoenix, Philadelphia, San Antonio, San Diego, Dallas, Austin, Jacksonville, etc.) would decide the outcome in who gets the White House. Considering how badly many of those urban centers are run, that would not bode well for the future of the country! Beyond the practical policy implications, it would alienate the populations of those not living in California, Texas, New York, Florida, Pennsylvania, Illinois, who would, for the most part, be reduced to bystanders in the race for the only nationally-elected position. A Heritage study analyzed the concept of a “National Popular Vote” (NPV) this way: “The National Popular Vote (NPV) plan is the latest in a long line of schemes designed to replace the Electoral College. Imbued with the ideals of this nation’s Founders, the Electoral College has proved itself to be both effective in providing orderly elections for President and resilient in allowing a stable transfer of power of the leadership of the world’s greatest democracy. Therefore, while it would be a mistake to replace the Electoral College, replacing this system with the NPV would be a disaster. The NPV would devalue the minority interests that the Founders sought to protect, create electoral administrative problems, encourage voter fraud, and radicalize the U.S. political system. It also would likely violate the U.S. Constitution’s Compact Clause while directly contravening the Founders’ view of federalism and a representative republic. In an age of perceived political dysfunction, effective policies already in place—especially successful policies established by this nation’s Founders, such as the Electoral College—should be preserved.” Trent England, writing for the National Conference of State Legislatures outlined key reasons for the institution: “At the Constitutional Convention, the primary concern of delegates opposed to direct election was that big states would dominate presidential politics. By using a two-step election process, the Electoral College prevents one region, or a handful of major metropolitan areas, from controlling the White House. Support must be geographically distributed around the country in order to win enough states to capture an electoral vote majority. This was particularly important after the Civil War. The nation remained divided, and Democrats became dominant in the south. A combination of intense popularity with some voters and violent suppression of others allowed Democrats to receive the most popular votes in 1876 and 1888 even though they lost the Electoral College and thus those elections.” Eliminating the Electoral College would be a disaster for the United States/