Whether patriotic or not, most Americans cherish the 4th of July. We enjoy celebrating the founding of our Nation with parades and picnics, and extra time off is always welcome. However, because of indoctrination from our government-controlled compulsory schooling, many Americans do not understand the true meaning of Independence Day, even among the highly educated. As I heard Rob Schmitt from Newsmax say, “It’s amazing the more educated a person, the dumber they really are.” I would put it a little more mildly, purposeful indoctrination in higher education has led to profound ignorance.
Without a proper understanding of the Declaration, like every other Empire that came before us, we may also implode. Empires, on average, have lasted 250 years. The United States of America, hopefully, will celebrate our 250th year anniversary three years from now on July 4, 2026; there are some hopeful signs that may allow us to defy history.
So, what did we hear and read about on this 247th anniversary of the Independence of the United States of America? Our Founders are criticized as slave owners, and many ignorant Americans want their monuments and street names taken down and changed. On this 4th of July, Ben & Jerry’s ice cream company claims that the “U.S. exists on stolen Indigenous Land” and we ought to give it back; meanwhile, most likely unknowingly, the B & J Headquarters in Vermont sits on Western Abenaki land… will B & J give back its Indigenous Land… highly doubtful…
Then we have the likes of various Law Professors putting their “outlandish” and “peculiar” spin on the meaning of Independence Day, for the sole purpose of keeping most Americans from understanding the true meaning of the Declaration of Independence, along with the deliberate misinterpretation of the Constitution of the United States of America. Here’s what the democratic socialist Frederick E. Hoxie, Professor Emeritus from the University of Illinois, had to say:
“The juxtaposition July 4th and last week’s avalanche of Supreme Court decisions should prompt us to think deeply about the legacy of the document we celebrate each Independence Day. While peppered with Jefferson’s stirring phrases . . . the document, when issued, had but one purpose: ‘to dissolve the political bands’ that bound the colonies to Great Britain. The Declaration created America as a self-governing democracy. That identity is currently under threat.”
Hoxie’s opinion that the Declaration “had but one purpose” is lacking at best, or deliberately made to mislead the American people. First, he lists two purposes — (1) Independence from Great Britain and (2) the creation of “a self-governing democracy” — NOT one purpose… maybe he took a course on gender pronouns rather than a math class?
Furthermore, the Declaration did not create “a self-governing democracy” sadly, like what we have evolved into today. Professor Hoxie believes the American democracy “is currently under threat” because of several Supreme Court decisions that were recently decided that went against his core democratic socialist beliefs.
The word “democracy” is nowhere to be found in the Declaration, and it is not in the Constitution ratified 13-years later. The Declaration created the “united States of America” and the thirteen “United Colonies” became “Free and Independent States,” NOT “a self-governing democracy” with ALL power drawn to a federal government, like Washington, D.C. today, i.e., look at the small “u” in united States of America, which was purposely written that way by Thomas Jefferson.
Hoxie intentionally dismisses or puts down one of the greatest American Founders when he wrote, “While peppered with Jefferson’s stirring phrases” the Declaration had one sole purpose. NOT SO, Jefferson, declared to the world, which had never been done before: (1) All men are created equal under God with certain unalienable rights to include Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; (2) The only legitimate purpose of Government is to protect these unalienable rights, which are negative rights, e.g., we have a right to pursue happiness or property, we do not have a right to take property from others, either by outright theft or “legal plunder” through legislative acts; (3) when a “Government becomes destructive of these Ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it;” (4) Jefferson listed twenty-seven “Abuses and Usurpations” by King George III and Great Britain, declaring that such actions were designed to reduce the colonies “under absolute Despotism” and it is not only the Right of the People But, “it is their Duty to throw off such Government;” and (5) Jefferson concluded with a statement proclaiming Independence, with his final words acknowledging what they were about to do, “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.” There were fifty-six signers to that wonderful historic document that changed the course of the World, who are either ignored or demonized by many in academia, like Professor Hoxie.
Like the Scot’s Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, — It is not for honor or glory or wealth that we fight, but for freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life”— the Declaration of Independence was all about an idea of God-given unalienable rights of life, freedom or liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, with the main purpose of Government being to protect such rights; and, if the Government fails to protect our unalienable rights or purposely tramples on them, “it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it.”
Jefferson also believed that it was the Duty of the People to rebel against a tyrannical government. Professor Hoxie and his ilk would prefer that the American people do not understand this, e.g., “Americans pledged to live under the laws of its elected rulers . . . We cannot go our separate ways. We are all in this together.” Notice Hoxie’s slip-up, “elected rulers” … yes, he is right, contrary to the Declaration and Constitution, we now have “rulers” rather than representatives. But don’t worry, we still have the right to vote for those who enslave us! No wonder the Declaration of Independence is not included as an appendix in many Constitutional Law treatises/books used in Law School… “You say you want a revolution, well you know, we’d all love to change the world.” Beatles (1968)
The Founders established a Republic, NOT a Democracy! Aristotle described democracy as a perversion of constitutional government and tyranny by the many, ultimately leading to revolution. Inspired by Ben Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, an example of a democracy may be represented by two wolves and one lamb deciding what to have for dinner; freedom, on the other hand, is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. See Freedom vs. Democracy, Amazon.com: Freedom vs. Democracy : The Supreme Court May Be Our Last Hope eBook : Beard Jr. , Robert G.: Kindle Store. Professor Hoxie is just plain wrong about the Declaration creating a “self-governing democracy.” However, that is what he wants us, the American people, to incorrectly believe.
Hoxie continues… “Our uniqueness was welded into the structure of our government by the Declaration that founded an open-ended nation in which every citizen has a voice. . . The Declaration stated simply that every citizen belongs to a political community founded on independence and self-rule. From the moment of creation, Americans pledged to live under the laws of its elected rulers rather than as subjects of an unelected authority. . . and defines us as a democracy.” Democracy… again, we are a Republic… the majority is not supposed to be able to take away the unalienable rights, which include, among others, Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness or property, from the minority, which it is doing today, WITHOUT any constitutional amendments!
“From the moment of creation,” Americans DID NOT pledge “to live under the laws of its elected rulers!” I guess, unbeknownst to the professor, there were at least eleven rebellions, e.g., Shay’s Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion, that occurred between the American Revolution and the Civil War; then we had the Civil War. In addition, there were no less than a dozen rebellions after the Civil War.
Jefferson defined rightful liberty as “unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others—I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual.” Jefferson explained that “the natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.” Accordingly, Jefferson believed that a revolution was necessary about every 20-years to keep the government in check, i.e., “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.”
Therefore, contrary to Professor Hoxie’s statement—"Americans pledged to live under the laws of its elected rulers”—Americans pledged to live under the laws that protected their unalienable rights and NOT the “perverted” laws placing “the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous (e.g., Hoxie and his ilk) who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others.” (Frederic Bastiat, 1801-1850)
Here's the crux of the professor’s argument: “We now occupy an odd moment. The Supreme Court has announced that a web of legal theories binds us to a set of abstract principles, preventing the popular will from shaping national life. Logic in the court has created confusion in our streets.” Hoxie is referring to the Unalienable Rights to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness as “abstract principles” that should not get in the way of “the popular will” or rather, the majority and the loud enthusiastic minorities’ abilities, through legislation, “to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others.”
Because of the Supreme Court’s decisions in five cases, Hoxie states the following: (1) “Women may not control their bodies;” (2) “Communities may not banish deadly weapons from public places;” (3) “Colleges and universities may not address structural racism in their admissions policies;” (4) Student debts—money owed the United States-may not be forgiven;” and (5) “Citizens may be denied commercial freedom because of their sexual orientation.” The professor concludes, “Acting swiftly and with stunning ambition, the Justices have marked off areas where self-government shall not function.”
Where do I begin? Maybe with Hoxie’s statement that “the Justices have marked off areas where self-government shall not function.” Professor Hoxie and his cohorts do not want to be bound by our Founding Documents, which includes the Declaration and Constitution; they use terms like “self-government” to cover-up their real motives, i.e., in the name of a majority, they desire to pass laws that accomplish their philanthropic goals, through “legal plunder” by taking property from one group and giving it to another group, or forcing a belief system of one group onto all others. How does any of this— “self-government” and “liberal” ideology forced on everyone— even comport with the Declaration and Constitution which requires a legitimate Government to protect individual liberty and private property rights, including our right to think for ourselves and believe in anything we want, i.e., the majority cannot legitimately legislate away the minority’s rights and property.
Therefore, it appears that Hoxie believes that the recent five decisions of the Supreme Court has reversed the Liberal-Left’s ability of “self-government” where they have been able to infringe on the unalienable rights—defined in the Declaration and carried forward into the Constitution—of certain individuals and groups for the benefit of more favored groups and political donors.
The first problematic decision that Professor Hoxie mentions is Dobbs (6/24/2022), which overruled Roe v. Wade and Casey. Because of this decision, Hoxie opines that “women may not control their bodies.” According to the Supreme Court, “Abortion presents a profound moral question, and the Constitution does not prohibit the citizens of each state from regulating or prohibiting abortion.” The Supreme Court DID NOT prohibit abortion… they dodged the real question, a scientific question, i.e., when does life begin?
I have additional questions. Just because you are a left leaning “liberal” woman, does that give you the right to end a life? Today with the science and technology that is available, if you don’t want to get pregnant, aren’t there multiple choices that a woman has that would not involve killing a baby through the means of abortion… wouldn’t this constitute the ability to control your own body, thereby avoiding the physical and psychological problems that may ensue? Maybe we should follow the money… abortion and the selling of the fetus or baby body parts appears to be an extremely profitable business. Finally, if you, as a left-leaning woman, want to control your own body, why were so many of you so anxious to force Masking, COVID-19 Jabs, and other draconian lockdown measures on everyone else? My opinion, contrary to the professor’s, the Supreme Court’s decision does not prevent women from controlling their own bodies.
Professor Hoxie also appears to be extremely upset that “Communities may not banish deadly weapons from public places.” He is referring to the New York State Rifle & Pistol Association (Bruen) decision, decided June 23, 2022. The Supreme Court did recognize that we have the right to bear or carry firearms for self-defense in public places. However, and unfortunately, buried in the 135-pages of verbiage are details as to how the States and local municipalities may continue to deny the rights of citizens “to keep and bear Arms.” I discuss this case in my newest book, Freedom vs. Democracy, Amazon.com: Freedom vs. Democracy : The Supreme Court May Be Our Last Hope eBook : Beard Jr. , Robert G.: Kindle Store, in Chapter IV, Gun Rights Case Changed Nothing. Unfortunately, Professor Hoxie is wrong, communities will still be able to create far too many “gun-free zones” subjecting their law-abiding citizens to unnecessary risk of robbery, assault, battery, injury, and death. Criminals will always be able to obtain the weapons of their choice and take advantage of “gun-free zones.” If laws worked, there would be no robberies, assaults, rapes, murders, ad-infinitum. A gun is just a tool, like a truck or van, which have been used for mass murder, e.g., on July 14, 2016, eighty-six people were killed and 434 people injured by a terrorist driving a cargo truck in Nice, France. People kill people, NOT inanimate objects, or tools!
Perhaps the leftist-socialists that are “running the country into the ground” are afraid that the 2nd Amendment may be used against them, i.e., “A well regulated [trained to shoot straight] Militia [citizens of each State], being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The Founders understood that each citizen had a right to defend themselves without any amendment, i.e., if we have a right to Life and Liberty, we also have the right to defend ourselves to preserve those rights.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to be able to take up arms against a tyrannical government, one that usurps our unalienable or natural rights. Professor Hoxie and his comrades most likely understand that they might push this “self-government” thing to a breaking point where 20%-to-30% of Americans may resurrect the Declaration and take up arms against the current Government updating the abuses and usurpations listed by Jefferson, e.g., “He [the U.S. Federal Government] has erected a Multitude of new Offices [e.g., IRS, FBI, EPA, FDA, FinCEN], and sent hither Swarms of Officers [e.g., 87,000 IRS Agents] to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”
In addition to worrying about the leftist-socialists ability to take guns from law-abiding citizens, Professor Hoxie appears to be extremely upset that the Supreme Court ruled that race-based admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This should be the end of Affirmative Action and as Martin Luther King stated, I want to live in a Nation where my children “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” The professor, unfortunately, has nothing to worry about. The colleges and universities, staffed and run by socialist democrats, are already at work figuring out how to circumvent the Supreme Court ruling, which supposedly got rid of Affirmative Action or reverse discrimination.
I have not yet read the Supreme Court case siding against Harvard’s and the University of North Carolina’s “race-based admissions” policies but, I am very interested in reading the dissenting opinions of Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. Chances are their reasoning might be an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. Was Affirmative Action the reason Justices Sotomayor and Jackson are on the Court? Wasn’t it Justice Jackson, in her confirmation hearings, that could not define or describe what a woman is? Stay tuned!
Another concern of the Professor was that the Supreme Court ruled President Joe Biden could not, by the stroke of a pen, eliminate federal student loan debt. Even former Speaker of the House and Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, stated that Congress would have to do it through legislation. Hopefully they don’t! I paid my student loans and my children’s student loans. Why should I pay for my neighbor’s or their kid’s student loans, or why should someone who did not go to college pay for somebody else’s student loans!?! Whether Biden got away with this or if Congress may forgive this debt down the road, this is a “complete perversion of the Law” and a violation of the principles set forth in the Declaration, along with the limitations imposed upon Congress by the Constitution. If such a law is passed, every member of Congress supporting such legislation would be violating their Oath to uphold the Constitution… they can’t be impeached but, they surely should be voted out of office.
The last case Professor Hoxie was perturbed about is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, decided June 30, 2023, in favor of a small business owner against the State of Colorado. According to the Professor, “Citizens may be denied commercial freedom because of their sexual orientation.” NOT SO! This was a case where the State of Colorado wanted to force a Christian website designer, Ms. Smith, to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings, which infringed upon her Free Speech rights of the 1st Amendment. Under Colorado Law, the small business owner would be required to express views with which she strongly disagrees. It was stipulated that to the extent Ms. Smith may not be able to provide certain services to a potential customer because of her beliefs, there were numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the country that offer “custom website design services.” Justice Gorsuch rightly wrote that a State, in this case Colorado, cannot force “an individual to speak in ways that align with its [the States and elected “rulers”] views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”
Contrary to Professor Hoxie’s desires, with these five cases, the Supreme Court is slowing moving in the right direction to restore the principles set forth in the Declaration, which our Founders fought and died for. We Americans have shamefully let our elected “rulers” over time, like a frog in a pot of normal water slowly boiling, take away our rights creating a tyrannical leviathan, that is worse than that of King George III and Great Britain in 1776.
We have let the Government take control of our education system and constitutional law is no longer understood by the layman. Constitutional interpretation has been left to the “liberals” like Professor Hoxie and Professor of Constitutional Law Emeritus at Harvard University, Laurence H. Tribe. Tribe began teaching constitutional law at Harvard in 1968 and some of his students included Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Roberts, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, former President Barrack Husein Obama, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Democratic Congressmen Jami Raskin and Adam Schiff, and Senator Ted Cruz.
It appears that Laurence H. Tribe’s legal indoctrination did not work on Senator Ted Cruz. With respect to the Chief Justice, Professor Tribe’s influence appears to have some sway, but may be slowly disappearing. Unfortunately for the cause of individual liberty, respect for private property, and our unalienable or natural rights, ALL the others appear to have been properly indoctrinated; continuing their mission to destroy the experiment in individual freedom, which began over 247 years ago on July 4, 1776.
Why am I now picking on Tribe? Well, on the celebration of Independence Day this July 4, 2023, a federal Judge, Terry A. Doughty, who was appointed by former President Trump, issued a preliminary injunction in Missouri v. Biden, with a 155-page Memorandum Ruling to stop the Biden Administration and its three-letter agencies from speaking to or communicating with the Tech-Social Media Companies. This Judge’s reasoning and opinion gives me even more hope that we might be celebrating Independence Day on July 4th for many more years to come!
OK, what does Professor Emeritus Laurence H. Tribe have to do with this opinion? Well, on July 5, 2023, He, and professor of law at the University of Michigan, Leah Litman, wrote an article entitled, Restricting the Government from Speaking to Tech Companies Will Spread Disinformation and Harm Democracy. First, here are two so-called experts in constitutional law and they are more worried about harming democracy, which we are NOT, we are a Republic. In addition, the title suggests that they are all for the Government’s curtailment of Free Speech that they and the Government believe to be “Disinformation” when the purpose of the 1st Amendment is to prevent Government from interfering with Free Speech in the first place!
Tribe and Litman are the ones promoting disinformation. The 5-page article with a large font, criticizing the 155-page memorandum, was published, and accepted as fact by Justsecurity.org most likely based solely upon Tribe’s credentials: Professor Emeritus at Harvard, “author of more than 115 books and articles, including his treatise, American Constitutional Law, the most frequently cited book on U.S. constitutional law since 1950. He was appointed by President Barrack Obama [a student of his] to serve as the first Senior Counselor for Access to Justice at the Justice Department.” There appears to be no fact-checking or peer-review by Justsecurity.org, cited by Justia Verdict, which provides “Legal Analysis and Commentary,” i.e., in an article entitled Judge Doughty’s Aberrant First Amendment Decision Sows Distrust in the Law, the author wrote, “Constitutional law scholars Laurence Tribe and Leah Litman promptly and thoroughly dismantled the ‘reasoning’ behind the decision.” NOT SO, as you will see!
But first, let’s dig into the professor’s motives. Here's what Tribe, unfortunately, has written in his treatise, “American Constitutional Law, the most frequently cited book on U.S. constitutional law since 1950:”
“. . . to defy popular will in order to do what they [i.e., unelected judges and elected officials] believe the Constitution requires . . . raise questions of legitimacy. . . [T]hose who were framers and ratifiers most assuredly could not be said to speak for any current majority, much less for today’s people as a whole. On the contrary, it is vital that we not lose sight of just how imperfect, and often highly objectionable our Constitution remains.”
Besides a strong dislike for our Constitution, Tribe has also referred to the Founders as a “highly limited constituency of white property owners . . . with whom most [Americans] have only the most limited link (if any at all), [who decided] to limit our future freedom to exercise power.”
Tribe appears to be attempting “to undermine American values,” as the late Professor Dr. Walter E. Williams once explained. First, Tribe criticizes both the Constitution and the American Founders. Then he improperly states that the Founders decided “to limit our future freedom to exercise power” implying that the Founders purposely took away the freedom of future Americans. They did no such thing! Contrary to what Tribe implied, the Founders attempted to preserve future freedom by restricting the ability of the three branches of government “to exercise power” over individual Americans. Perhaps Tribe was attempting to use “esoteric hermeneutics,” as Justice Clarence Thomas suggested, to rationalize “expansive powers for the government,” assuming that many of his students lacked the ability “to think critically.” Tribe wrote in his treatise that the Founders wanted “to limit our future freedom to exercise power,” confusing the issue by using the word ‘freedom” instead of ‘ability.’ As the so-called constitutional expert, here’s what Tribe should have written: The “framers and ratifiers” attempted “to limit our future [ability] to exercise power” over our fellow Americans.
As for undermining the principles of the Declaration and, as Dr. Williams stated, the legitimacy of the Constitution, by purposely changing the meaning of it “to gain greater control over [the] lives” of Americans, here is what Tribe wrote in his treatise, which has been taught to several current Supreme Court Justices and many other members of the legal profession:
“. . . sometimes meanings are subject to chronic flux. In particular, documents of considerable . . . importance—like the Constitution—may themselves give new importance to terms previously the beneficiaries of easy consensus, and thereby open the meaning of such terms to new debate.”
“The upshot is that the Constitution’s text, and historical material relevant to the text’s proper understanding, will almost invariably recede into the background behind a parade of precedents, until the Constitution itself begins to seem ‘rather like . . . a remote ancestor who came over on the Mayflower.’ As Robert Post has rightly observed, beginners in constitutional law are often amazed by how little of the Constitution they find in constitutional opinions, which tend to be filled with the elaboration and application of various doctrinal ‘tests’ extracted from prior decisions.”
As understood by Dr. Williams and described by Tribe, the Constitution has been purposely reinterpreted, without being properly amended. This reinterpretation has come about with the aid of Professor Tribe, along with many others that came before him, leading to greater government power, less individual freedom, and a complete disrespect for private property rights. These people are purposely destroying the experiment of individual freedom that began on July 4, 1776, with the Declaration of Independence.
Now that you understand what Tribe has been doing for the past 55 years or so, let’s get back to the article that Tribe and Litman wrote, which, according to another legal analyst, “dismantled the ‘reasoning’ behind the decision” in Missouri v. Biden. It did not!
Tribe and Litman wrote, “The impetus behind the case is the now thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory that the government is somehow strong-arming Big Tech into censoring conservative speech and speakers in violation of the First Amendment.” Even without reading the 155-page memorandum, you would think that most people have heard of Elon Musk and the “Twitter Files” … surely that would be enough for most of us to challenge their phrase, “thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory.” BUT, more importantly, Judge Doughty included at least seventy-seven (77) pages of names, dates, meetings, phone calls, and emails “strong-arming Big Tech.”
Here's the next “outlandish” statement by Tribe and Litman, with no proof to back it up: “While there are, in theory, interesting questions . . . Each step in the reasoning of the decision manages to be more outlandish than the last—from the idea that the plaintiffs have standing to the notion that the plaintiffs are entitled to an injunction at this stage . . .” When the Courts, along with members of the bar and academia, do not want to address constitutional issues that would take power away from government and restore individual freedom, especially private property rights, they attempt to avoid the issue entirely by arguing that the plaintiffs “lack standing.” Contrary to Judge Doughty’s decision, Tribe and Litman suggest the plaintiffs lack standing. I agree with the Judge and if you read the 155-page memorandum, you most likely would too!
The next line of attack by those who dislike the boundaries laid out by the Constitution is to delay as long as possible. Ms. Smith, the website designer, waited seven years to get justice and prevail against the State of Colorado. In this case, Tribe is arguing that the injunction should be delayed until Missouri v. Biden is appealed to the Fifth Circuit and, if granted certiorari, further delayed until the Supreme Court’s ruling. This would leave the government much more time to violate the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs, while figuring out a way to work around the law going forward… maybe even hiring Tribe to represent the Government if the case reaches the Supreme Court.
Tribe continues, “Start with the pedantic: The introduction to the opinion announces that ‘the purpose of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment’ is ‘to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas … rather than to countenance monopolization of the market, whether it be by the government itself or private licensee.’ To support that proposition, the district court cited Red Lion Broadcasting Co . . . far from supporting the district court’s peculiar ruling . . . it supports the government’s authority to regulate speech—and indeed to compel speech—on private platforms in certain circumstances.” Notice the use of the term “pedantic” and “the district court’s peculiar ruling.” This is Tribe putting down or denigrating Judge Doughty… something the Left tends to do regularly.
Contrary to Tribe’s insinuation, that Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) does not support “the district court’s peculiar ruling,” I think it does. Here’s why based upon the following excerpts from the decision:
“The First Amendment is relevant to public broadcasting, but it is the right of the viewing and listening public, and not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”
“The First Amendment does not protect private censorship by broadcasters who are licensed by the Government to use a scarce resource which is denied others.”
“[When] public issues [are] presented on broadcast stations . . . each side of those issues must be given fair coverage.”
“The right of free speech of a broadcaster, the user of a sound truck, or any other individual does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others.”
“It is the right [Free Speech] of the viewers and listeners, not the right of broadcasters, which is paramount.”
And finally, here’s what Justice White wrote in Red Lion Broadcasting, which was cited almost verbatim by Judge Doughty in his second paragraph of his Introduction:
“It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee.”
Tribe is wrong! Judge Doughty’s citation of Red Lion Broadcasting in support of his injunction is spot on! Tribe concludes, “Whatever ultimately happens in this case shouldn’t cause us to lose sight of the fact that this decision, if left standing, will make us less secure as a nation and will endanger us all every day the injunction remains in force.” Here is just a brief summary of the facts from the decision where Plaintiffs allege that Defendants suppressed conservative-leaning free speech:
1) suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story prior to the 2020 Presidential election;
2) suppressing speech about the lab-leak theory of COVID-19’s origin;
3) suppressing speech about the efficiency of masks and COVID-19 lockdowns;
4) suppressing speech about the efficiency of COVID-19 vaccines;
5) suppressing speech about election integrity in the 2020 presidential election;
6) suppressing speech about the security of voting by mail;
7) suppressing parody content about Defendants;
8) suppressing negative posts about the economy; and
9) suppressing negative posts about President Biden.
So, according to Tribe and Litman, preventing the Government and Big-Tech from colluding and snuffing out the free speech of others, as indicated above, “will make us less secure as a nation and will endanger us all every day.” I don’t buy it, do you!?!
In fact, the decisions by the Supreme Court discussed above, along with Judge Doughty’s First Amendment ruling, gives me hope that the Courts are now doing their duty “to be watchful for the constitutional rights of the citizens, and against any stealthy encroachments [by Congress and Government].” Justice Joseph P. Bradley (1813-1892)
Dr. Thomas Krannawitter, American Institute for Economic Research, wrote a wonderful and informative article this past July 4, 2023. Here are some important excerpts:
“This Independence Day, we recall how strangely beautiful the American Founding was. It remains the first of its kind, often imitated, never fully replicated.”
“The American Founding, announced to the world by a Declaration of Independence that appealed to ‘opinions of mankind,’ was a unique blending of political elements, some ancient, some modern. Traditions mattered, and so did timeless, abstract ideas.”
“The ‘unalienable rights’ that formed the major premise of the Declaration of Independence are emphatically negative rights. A person’s natural rights are rightful claims to whatever a person rightfully owns by nature, including his own life, liberty, property, and the freedom to speak, think, be productive, and pursue happiness.”
“The entire political logic of constitutional government flows from the idea of negative rights. A government of limited constitutional power is possible only if the purpose of government is limited to protecting the natural rights of each citizen. The moment we expand the purpose of government to include taking from some in order to give to others—the moment we adopt positive rights, or entitlements—while regulating and controlling virtually every aspect of life for everyone, we replace a government of limited with a government of unlimited power.”
“That is where we are this Independence Day, 2023, in the United States of America. Our politicians either mock or ignore the Constitution because we, as a nation of citizens, have forgotten the natural, negative rights enshrined in our own Declaration of Independence (and other Founding documents). Instead, we’ve embraced positive rights, which is nothing but a ruse for some fellow citizens taking what was produced and rightly belongs to others. We’ve traded our constitutional government of limited powers for a national debt of $32 trillion and growing, coupled with unfunded liabilities that are six times that amount, or more.”
“Our options are two: Continue our path of positive rights, entitlements, and limitless government control over our lives and property, until the United States implodes. Or, we embrace again the natural rights, principles, and virtues that once fueled our fight for independence. The choice is ours. It is a fateful choice we should not make lightly.”
With the recent Supreme Court decisions previously discussed, along with the First Amendment decision against the Government and Big-Tech, I believe there is still hope that we may have time to reverse course and be able to celebrate our 250th Independence Day on July 4, 2026, along with many more thereafter.
However, at the University level, we must stop funding our alma maters that subscribe to the leftist socialist ideals. Several years ago, I started to create a course for Constitutional Law, Choose Freedom, Not Slavery, which would be an elective, with the goal to make it available online for all law schools throughout Florida, and eventually, nationwide. If you are interested in helping me move this project forward, go to our website, Choose Freedom — Jeffersonian Group | Financial Planning & independence, and sign-up. We need to start training Lawyers to think like Judge Doughty, NOT like Professor Emeritus Laurence Tribe. Thank you in advance for your support.
Just as important, as parents and grandparents, we must get involved and take-back our schools at the K-through-12 levels, before another generation of children are permanently lost from the indoctrination by leftist-socialists, who are currently in control of our government-controlled compulsory schooling system. Ultimately, we need to Separate Education from the State.
As a suggestion, you may want to buy my book, Democracy vs. Freedom, The Supreme Court May Be Our Last Hope. Once you finish reading the paperback version, send it to Justice Clarence Thomas or Neil Gorsuch, who just recently published a book entitled, A Republic, If You Can Keep It. Buy two of my books and send it to both Justices! Imagine hundreds or thousands of books showing up at the Supreme Court… we just might get their attention!
Finally, we must ALL vote every socialist out-of-office in November 2024. Anyone who wants to raise taxes on anyone or anything, or who wants to increase overall government spending, or who wants to increase regulations, or who supports the climate change agenda, or anyone who would rather buy fossil fuels from countries that hate us rather than becoming energy independent once again, is a socialist or as Ben Franklin would say, a scoundrel, and YOU SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR THEM.
We want to continue to celebrate Independence Day in all its Glory!
Dum Spiro Spero—While I breathe, I hope.
Slainte mhath,
Robert G. (Mike) Beard Jr., C.P.A., C.G.M.A., J.D., LL.M