by Bob Barr | Apr 19, 2021 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily CallerEver since the Supreme Court of the United States was instituted by Article III of our Constitution as ratified by the states in 1788, many of Western civilization’s greatest legal minds have served as justices on that august bench. One of these exceptional jurists was America’s very first Chief Justice, John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835.It was Marshall who, in 1805, authored an opinion that to this day remains a bedrock principle according to which our government, and indeed our very culture, has rested. In that seminal case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court declared that the final authority by which the constitutionality of any law passed by Congress and signed by the president is to be measured, is the federal judiciary, with the Supreme Court of the United States at its apex.Over the ensuing 216 years, presidents, members of Congress, lower courts and citizens of all political stripes have complained – sometimes bitterly – when application of this principle of judicial review results in a decision with which they disagree. However, Marshall’s assertion that such process is essential for “the government of the United States” to remain “a government of laws, and not of men,” is at least as important today as it was in 1805.Our 32nd President, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was so angered by the Supreme Court’s decisions during his first four years in office declaring provisions of his “New Deal” to be unconstitutional, that in 1937 he launched a frontal attack on the independence of the court; a proposal that quickly became known as Roosevelt’s “court-packing plan.” FDR’s plan would have amended...
by Bob Barr | Apr 19, 2021 | FullMAGnews |
FullMAGnewsAs the expression goes, “talk is cheap.” When it comes to gun control, however, talk about taking away or diminishing a right expressly guaranteed in our Constitution is most definitely not “cheap.” Quite the opposite. Perhaps most important in this context is the often un-asked, but disconcerting question for gun control advocates – precisely how would you take away all those now-legal firearms currently in the hands of law-abiding citizens? What might in the past have been sloughed off as a mere hypothetical question, is becoming increasingly relevant as the Biden Administration and its cohorts in the Congress move their gun-control agenda into high gear, legislatively and by executive action in the aftermath of several highly publicized mass murders.True to form, such criminal acts already are fueling efforts by Democrats not to address the root causes underlying such evil acts, but rather to push for greater and greater controls on the instrumentality by which many such murders are committed – firearms. President Joe Biden self-proclaims as America’s most anti-gun president, exceeding in both rhetoric and drive of his former boss, Barack Obama. A recent spate of mass murders by deranged young men already is being used as an impetus for sweeping gun control – by Congress and myriad Executive Branch agencies including but certainly not limited to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) and its parent agency, the U. S. Department of Justice It is no longer a matter of if, but when, substantive restrictions and outright bans on firearms, gun parts, and ammunition make their way onto the books.Democrats are not just looking for campaign soundbites this time around, and...
by Bob Barr | Apr 14, 2021 | Townhall Article |
TownhallWhen I use a word, ‘Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone,’ it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.As villains in 20th Century literature go, Ellsworth Toohey, the antagonist in Ayn Rand’s 1943 The Fountainhead, would hardly seem frightful. He was not a serial killer, terrorist, or supernatural stalker, but rather a diminutive newspaper critic who brought society to the brink of ruin through nothing more than corrupting the meaning of words. It seems clear that Democrats have a similar plan in mind.It is for this reason that conservatives should not dismiss out of hand Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s inane tweet last week that paid leave, childcare, and caregiving constituted “infrastructure” projects. In Gillibrand’s and President Biden’s world, as they collect votes for their $2.25 trillion infrastructure spending package, anything can become “infrastructure,” making it easier to sell to their colleagues and to voters. Similar linguistic chicanery is displayed whenever the Administration sidesteps responsibility for the current chaos at our southern border. Rather than a quickly spiraling health and national security crisis, the border situation is simply a “challenge” — a nuisance if you will, to be noted for the record. By the same legerdemain, and at times even in the same news cycle, “climate change” becomes “climate emergency,” “silence is violence,” and “education” devolves into plopping kids in front of a laptop for six hours a day. When words no longer have definite, objective meaning, they no longer anchor policies or actions to objective, universal principles. The result is public policies that are infinitely malleable, where nothing is certain, and where rebutting such arguments is like trying to nail Jell-O to...
