Our Constitutional Minute
In one of the local Republican clubs to which I belong, I volunteered to be a member of the Constitution Committee. One of the duties which we three members perform is to alternate presenting to the monthly meeting of the Club a “Constitutional Minute,” ahead of hearing from our featured speaker.
Readers may recall we wrote a blog about our featured speaker last month and the invocation which I presented, and we omitted the Constitutional Minute segment to give more time to former Deputy White House Press Secretary Hogan Gidley.
The purpose of the Constitutional Minute is to provide a legislative update, whether it be local, state or national government news. There were probably about 110 persons in attendance at our luncheon today as I gave the following Constitutional Minute report.
QUOTE: Given that my undergraduate degree was in Journalism, I was trained to report just the facts. I could do that, but we in this audience are all too aware that straight news journalism has been perverted into propaganda machines for the Leftists and assorted collectivists, by whatever name they may be trying to hide their agendas.
Therefore, I want to be clear to all of you, that this, and any future Constitutional Minute reports to you, contains not only the straight news, but it is also my analysis of the news vis a vis the Constitution. So here we go:
As the U. S. Supreme Court wrapped up their session before adjourning for the summer, decisions were announced on four major issues. We are going to address the first three only briefly. These were all cheered by conservatives. They were:
- The Court found in favor of a Christian web designer in Colorado who was being forced by Colorado law to design websites to celebrate same-sex weddings. This was seen as a First Amendment issue of free speech, but in our view, it was equally a First Amendment issue of freedom of religion.
- The Court essentially called a halt to Affirmative Action, at least insofar as it was practiced in university admissions policies.
The specific case which was ruled on involved both Harvard and the University of North Carolina. In effect, the SCOTUS decision stops a 60-year practice of reverse racism in university admissions programs.
As expected and as a result of this decision, state attorneys-general from 13 states thus far, have put 100 of America’s giant corporations on notice that, following the Supreme Court decision against racial discrimination at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, private companies would be held to the same standard.
- The Supreme Court also struck down Resident Joe Biden’s student loan forgiveness program, ruling that he does not have the Constitutional authority to do so.
Those are all good decisions, but nearly lost in the jubilation by conservatives was, in our opinion, the most important of all the decisions ruled on in that final flurry of releases in the last week of June.
So, number 4. On this extraordinarily critical issue, a shocking majority of the Justices of the Supreme Court blew it.
This was the decision that was directly related to our state of North Carolina. It was hoped and expected by many of us that the U. S. Supreme Court would surely rule to confirm what the Constitution so clearly states.
We found it rather surprising that in all of the news and opinion pieces which we have read in researching this report (and there were many on both sides which we perused), that none of them actually quoted the U.S. Constitution.
We will do so in a minute, but to refresh your memories on the vital importance of this case, it involves which governmental body has the right, duty and authority to draw the boundaries of the U.S. Congressional Districts within each state.
Is it the state governor? The state Supreme Court? The President? The US Supreme Court?
Now let us read the pertinent part of the Constitution of the United States: Article 1, Section 4: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof;
Pause there. Notice that the supreme law of the land does not say may be prescribed; it says: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing [sic] Senators.” [Then it goes on with “The Congress shall assemble at least once in every Year…”]
As many of you know, conservatives in the NC House and Senate have worked within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution to do their duty to redraw the lines of the Congressional Districts due to population shifts as evidenced by the national census every ten years.
But, of course, the radical Dems have fought the new boundaries with tooth and claw, sending this case, called Moore vs. Harper, to the NC Supreme Court, which itself never had the authority to involve itself in this matter.
It is clearly designated by the U.S. Constitution to be under the sole purview of each state’s legislature.
Thus, the Democrat-controlled NC Supreme Court usurped authority when they decided that they could appoint so-called “special masters” to draw and supervise the drawing of the new boundaries.
And while it was being appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, the new Republican majority in our NC Supreme Court overturned the previous court decision essentially saying (correctly) “we don’t have the authority to be involved here,” and therefore they would no longer address cases involving accusations of partisan gerrymandering.
So now we see that our power-grabbing U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that state courts can review congressional election maps drawn by legislatures. And that ruling thus affirms the 2022 decision by North Carolina’s then-Democrat-controlled Supreme Court.
Without getting any further into the weeds on this, we will close with a note that I am appalled at the lack of clear Constitutional analysis by many pundits who are supposedly conservative and who basically support this SCOTUS decision for reasons such as “Well, this decision is in line with Supreme Court precedents going back over a hundred years.”
And another conservative pundit who opined that “Well, if the Court had ruled the other way, it really would have opened the door for all kinds of controversy.”
To which we respond, So what?! In the Roe v. Wade decision, the Court boldly and correctly stated that “previous Courts have erred…”
Exactly right! Legal precedents should not always govern, but the Constitution should always govern, because, to use a biblical truth, the tares were planted along with the wheat very early in this nation.
I could speak on this for another hour, but I am quite certain that my Constitutional “Minute” has expired.
We encourage all of you to continue to be involved in whatever way you can to help restore freedom in this once-God blest nation.
Thank you for your attention. END QUOTE
I was encouraged by a number of favorable comments and “thumbs ups” from audience members. The District Attorney for our county and two neighboring counties came up to me as we adjourned and with a grin stated, “That was a good presentation. You know more than I do about those cases.”
I am not sure that is true but it was kind of him to encourage me in that manner. He’s a good man and we are blest to have him as our DA. No Soros flunky here!