On behalf of RNLA, our Co-Chair Harmeet Dhillion signed onto a letter by the Independent Women’s Voice(IWV) opposing the “zombied” Equal Rights Amendment(ERA). As we wrote previously the current effort to revive the Equal Rights Amendment is invalid and Unconstitutional. The IWV letter agrees but also lays out why the underlying amendment is bad policy:
Created Equal: Clarence Thomas in His Own Words is a great movie. I saw it this weekend and came away with three thoughts, none of which are on his legal philosophy, which is just touched on in the movie. But two of them are very relevant for today.
As the DNC Chair Tom Perez calls for a recanvass of the Iowa Caucus goes, advocates for the Equal Rights Amendment are even more “math confused.”
As Wikipedia describes it(emphasis added):
The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is or was a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution designed to guarantee equal legal rights for all American citizens regardless of sex.
There should be no doubt, the life of the ERA has expired. As National Review writes:
When Congress originally submitted the ERA to the states for ratification in 1972, it gave it a March 1979 deadline. Deadlines have been a common feature of amendments, one the Supreme Court unanimously declared permissible in 1921. The ERA didn’t get enough states to ratify it before that deadline. Congress then, by a simple majority, purported to extend the deadline for three years — an act declared unconstitutional by the only court to review it. (It takes a two-thirds supermajority, the kind the ERA got in 1972, to submit an amendment for ratification.) The ERA didn’t get ratified by the new, dubious deadline, either. At that point, in 1982, everyone — including the Supreme Court — acknowledged that the amendment was dead.Read more
The Democrats' latest attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the 2016 election is finally done. Impeachment is over.
As White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham stated (emphasis added):
In what has now become a consistent tradition for Democrats, this was yet another witch-hunt that deprived the President of his due process rights and was based on a series of lies. Rep. Adam Schiff lied to Congress and the American people with a totally made up statement about the President’s phone call. Will there be no retribution? Speaker Nancy Pelosi also lied to the American people about the need to swiftly pass impeachment articles they dreamt up, only to sit on them for a month before sending over to the Senate. In the Senate, the Democrats continued to make their political motivations clear – Rep. Schiff proclaimed the issues “cannot be decided at the ballot box” – proving once again they think they know better than the voters of this country. This entire effort by the Democrats was aimed at overturning the results of the 2016 election and interfering with the 2020 election.Read more
Democrats looked forward to the first results in their 2020 presidential primary yesterday.
Preliminary results have not been released due to widespread problems with an app designed for reporting precinct-level results to the state party. (The "majority" of results are supposed to be released around 5:00 Eastern today.) Some local leaders could not download or run the app, and there were issues even with those who could use it to report:
We chronicled the Democratic National Committee's efforts and alleged activity to prevent Senator Bernie Sanders from becoming the 2016 Democratic presidential nominee (here, here, and here). As the Iowa caucuses meet tonight and according to recent reports, it may happen again in 2020 as DNC insiders consider reviving superdelegates' primary role at the DNC Convention:Read more
Yesterday, during the Senate impeachment trial's questions phase, 2020 Democratic presidential candidate and Senator Elizabeth Warren submitted a question that attacked Chief Justice John Roberts who is presiding over the Senate impeachment trial as required by the Constitution:
Roberts read the question aloud: “At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government, does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”Read more
One of the favorite attack lines of the Democrat House Managers and their more biased media supporters was a mischaracterization of Professor Alan Dershowitz's statement: “if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” An example of the left’s reaction to this quote:
“This is what you hear from Stalin,” said CNN contributor Joe Lockhart, who served as White House press secretary under President Bill Clinton. “This is what you hear from Mussolini, what you hear from authoritarians, from Hitler, from all the authoritarian people who rationalized, in some cases genocide, based what was in the public interest."Read more
In response to the draft and the Vietnam War, America passed the 26th Amendment. The thought was if you are old enough to be drafted, you are old enough to vote. However, today California Democrats have exposed that their attempts to allow 17-year-olds to vote are not for the noble reasons of the 26th Amendment but cynical attempts to get more Democrat votes.Read more
We will keep giving a few tidbits on the previous day’s impeachment proceedings. Today we are going to focus on few highlights from Monday with a brief preview of what will happen tomorrow. The bottom line is an impeachment over policy differences or for partisan reasons cannot be legitimate.
As President Trump’s personal lawyer Jay Sekulow explained yesterday:
Sekulow on Monday invoked the House testimony of White House Ukraine adviser Alexander Vindman, who told lawmakers he opposed Trump’s actions on the July phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky.
“He himself said he did not know if there was a crime or anything of that nature. He had deep policy concerns,” Sekulow said. “And I think that’s what’s this is really about: It’s deep policy concerns. Deep policy differences. But we live in a constitutional republic.”
The defense attorney said, “It is our position as the president’s counsel that the president was at all times acting under his constitutional authority, under his legal authority, in our national interest and pursuant to his oath of office. Asking a foreign leader to get to the bottom of issues of corruption is not a violation of an oath.”Read more