[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

George Washington University raises the Hamas flag. American Flag has been removed.

Alabama students chant Take A Shower to the Hamas terrorists on campus.

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

In Day of the Lord, 24 Church Elders with Crowns Join Jesus in His Throne

Deadly Saltwater and Deadly Fresh Water to Increase

Deadly Cancers to soon Become Thing of the Past?

Plague of deadly New Diseases Continues

[FULL VIDEO] Police release bodycam footage of Monroe County District Attorney Sandra Doorley traffi

Police clash with pro-Palestine protesters on Ohio State University campus

Joe Rogan Experience #2138 - Tucker Carlson

Police Dispersing Student Protesters at USC - Breaking News Coverage (College Protests)

What Passover Means For The New Testament Believer

Are We Closer Than Ever To The Next Pandemic?

War in Ukraine Turns on Russia

what happened during total solar eclipse

Israel Attacks Iran, Report Says - LIVE Breaking News Coverage

Earth is Scorched with Heat

Antiwar Activists Chant ‘Death to America’ at Event Featuring Chicago Alderman

Vibe Shift

A stream that makes the pleasant Rain sound.

Older Men - Keep One Foot In The Dark Ages

When You Really Want to Meet the Diversity Requirements

CERN to test world's most powerful particle accelerator during April's solar eclipse

Utopian Visionaries Who Won’t Leave People Alone

No - no - no Ain'T going To get away with iT

Pete Buttplug's Butt Plugger Trying to Turn Kids into Faggots

Mark Levin: I'm sick and tired of these attacks

Questioning the Big Bang

James Webb Data Contradicts the Big Bang

Pssst! Don't tell the creationists, but scientists don't have a clue how life began

A fine romance: how humans and chimps just couldn't let go

Early humans had sex with chimps

O’Keefe dons bulletproof vest to extract undercover journalist from NGO camp.

Biblical Contradictions (Alleged)

Catholic Church Praising Lucifer

Raising the Knife

One Of The HARDEST Videos I Had To Make..

Houthi rebels' attack severely damages a Belize-flagged ship in key strait leading to the Red Sea (British Ship)

Chinese Illegal Alien. I'm here for the moneuy

Red Tides Plague Gulf Beaches

Tucker Carlson calls out Nikki Haley, Ben Shapiro, and every other person calling for war:

{Are there 7 Deadly Sins?} I’ve heard people refer to the “7 Deadly Sins,” but I haven’t been able to find that sort of list in Scripture.

Abomination of Desolation | THEORY, BIBLE STUDY

Bible Help

Libertysflame Database Updated

Crush EVERYONE with the Alien Gambit!

Vladimir Putin tells Tucker Carlson US should stop arming Ukraine to end war

Putin hints Moscow and Washington in back-channel talks in revealing Tucker Carlson interview

Trump accuses Fulton County DA Fani Willis of lying in court response to Roman's motion

Mandatory anti-white racism at Disney.


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

U.S. Constitution
See other U.S. Constitution Articles

Title: Our Republican Constitution
Source: Amazon
URL Source: [None]
Published: Apr 21, 2016
Author: Randy Barnett
Post Date: 2016-04-21 18:54:18 by tpaine
Keywords: None
Views: 5308
Comments: 21

The nation’s leading libertarian legal scholar tells the riveting story of the long struggle between two fundamentally opposing constitutional traditions and explains that beneath every passionate debate between conservatives and liberals lies a deep disagreement about our founding document.

Americans today are deeply divided—politically, ideologically, and culturally. Some of us live in blue states and watch CNN; others live in red states and watch Fox News. Some Americans want more government, others less. We engage in passionate debate over issues like gun control, health care, same-sex marriage, immigration, and the war on terrorism. But above all, says renowned legal scholar Randy E. Barnett, we are in fundamental disagreement about the Constitution.

From the early days of the American republic, the nature of government “of the people, by the people, for the people” has been disputed. This is because there are not one but two very different notions of “We the People” and popular sovereignty, which yield competing schools of constitutional thought. The democrats view We the People collectively and think popular sovereignty resides in the people as a group. They view the Constitution as a living document and contend that today’s majority should not be governed by the dead hand of past majorities.

The republicans view We the People as a collection of individuals. Their vision of government is that it should not reflect the will of the majority—but rather secure the preexisting rights of each and every person to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

This fundamental disagreement lies at the heart of our current national divide. In Our Republican Constitution, Barnett tells the fascinating story of how this conflict arose shortly after the Revolution, leading to the adoption of a new and innovative republican constitution; and how the struggle and eventual victory over slavery led to its improvement by a newly formed Republican Party. Yet soon after, progressive academics and activists urged the courts to remake it into a democratic constitution by ignoring key passages of its text. And eventually the courts complied.

Luckily, this debate is far from over. Drawing from his deep knowledge of constitutional law and history—as well as his experience litigating on behalf of medical marijuana and against Obamacare—Barnett explains why We the People would benefit greatly from the renewal of our Republican Constitution, and how this can be accomplished in the courts and political arena.

Advance Praise For Our Republican Constitution

“Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett is a rarity in academia. He is not only one of the most important constitutional scholars of our time, but a brilliant advocate for the restoration of our republic by embracing the Constitution and defending individual sovereignty. This is a very important book for constitutional conservatives and all Americans who love liberty and country.”—Mark R. Levin, lawyer, radio host, and author of Plunder and Deceit and The Liberty Amendments

“You don’t have to be in agreement with Randy Barnett to respect his scholarship, enjoy his writing, and learn from his arguments. But—trigger warning!—after reading this book, I predict you’ll find yourself more persuaded than you expected to be of the urgent case for reclaiming our Republican Constitution.”—William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard

“Randy Barnett is one of the country’s most important and creative constitutional thinkers. In Our Republican Constitution, he revives and restates the natural rights tradition in American constitutional thought for our time, explaining why our system of government is based on the primacy of rights and respect for the individual sovereignty of each and every one of us.”—Jack M. Balkin, Yale Law School

“Randy Barnett has given us the book that will help every American develop a greater understanding of the Constitution. But Barnett does so much more than help us recall our constitutional heritage and the power of the courts to protect the rights of the people; he also points to a path forwartv 5th.d for constitutional conservatives. This is essential reading for anyone interested in the future of our Constitution, from one of the most insightful constitutional scholars and political philosophers of his generation, and one of the leaders in our shared effort to restore the Constitution’s commitment to individual liberty.”—MIKE LEE, U.S. SENATOR FOR UTAH

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

#17. To: tpaine (#0)

It does not appear that Barnett in Our Republican Constitution, or in his legal textbook, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, (1,348 pp.), discusses primary elections and the law.

Below, I present a couple of U.S. Supreme Court opinions which are on topic and may be of interest. Freedom of association, to associate or not associate, appears to be an important and relevant constitutional provision.

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep419&id=609#609

Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U.S. 477 (1975)

Syllabus

COUSINS ET AL. v. WIGODA ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS, FIRST DISTRICT

No. 73-1106. Argued November 11, 1974-

Decided January 15, 1975

Petitioners (Cousins delegates) challenged before the National Democratic Party Credentials Committee, as violative of Party guidelines, the seating of respondents (Wigoda delegates) who had been elected from Chicago districts at the March 1972 Illinois primary election as delegates to the 1972 Democratic National Convention to be held in July 1972. The Committee decided that the Cousins delegates should be seated instead of the Wigoda delegates, who, on July 8, 1972, two days before the Convention opened, were granted an injunction by the Illinois Circuit Court enjoining the Cousins group from acting as delegates at the Convention. The Cousins delegates nevertheless were seated by the Convention and functioned as delegates. The Illinois Appellate Court affirmed, holding that "[t]he right to sit as a delegate representing Illinois at the national nominating convention is governed exclusively by the Illinois Election Code," and that the "interest of the State in protecting the effective right to participate in primaries is superior to whatever other interests the party itself might wish to protect." In another suit, which had been brought in the District Court for the District of Columbia, one Keane, a Wigoda delegate, challenged the constitutionality of the Party guidelines allegedly violated in the Wigoda delegates' selection. The District Court sustained one of the challenged guidelines and dismissed Keane's suit while denying the Party's counterclaim for an injunction against the Wigoda delegates' proceeding with the state-court action. The Court of Appeals on July 5 affirmed the dismissal but granted the counterclaim. This Court in a per curiam opinion stayed the judgment of the Court of Appeals and later, having granted Keane's petition for certiorari, vacated the Court of Appeals' judgment and remanded for a determination of mootness. The Court of Appeals thereafter held the case moot insofar as it involved the seating of delegates at the completed Convention and affirmed dismissal of the Keane suit. In addition to their arguments on the merits, petitioners contend that language in the per curiam established the Convention's right to decide the Chicago credentials contest, and that this Court's action in staying, but not vacating, the Court of Appeals' judgment left that judgment as a res judicata bar to the injunction. Held:

1. This Court's per curiam unqualifiedly suspended the operative effects of the Court of Appeals judgment without resolving the merits of the controversy; and petitioners' res judicata contention is not open for consideration, not having been pleaded and proved in the Circuit Court as required by state law. Pp. 485-487.

2. In the selection of candidates for national office a National Party Convention serves the pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, and the Circuit Court erred in issuing an injunction that abridged the associational rights of petitioners and their Party and the Party's right to determine the composition of its National Convention in accordance with Party standards. Pp. 487-491.

14 Ill. App. 3d 460, 302 N. E. 2d 614, reversed.

BRENNAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, WHITE, MARSHALL, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in the result, in which BURGER, C. J., and STEWART, J., joined, post, p. 491. POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, post, p. 496.

[...]

- - - - - - - - - -

http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep450&id=185#185

Democratic Party of United States v. Wisconsin, 450 U.S. 107 (1981)

Syllabus

DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF UNITED STATES ET AL. V. WISCONSIN EX REL. LA FOLLETTE ET AL.

APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF WISCONSIN

No. 79-1631. Argued December 8, 1980-Decided February 25, 1981 Rules of the Democratic Party of the United States (National Party) provide that only those who are willing to affiliate publicly with the Democratic Party may participate in the process of selecting delegates to the Party's National Convention. Wisconsin election laws allow voters to participate in its Democratic Presidential candidate preference primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. While the Wisconsin delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Democratic Party, those delegates are bound to vote at the Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election. Thus, while Wisconsin's open Presidential preference primary does not itself violate the National Party's rules, the State's mandate that primary results shall determine the allocation of votes cast by the State's delegates at the National Convention does. When the National Party indicated that Wisconsin delegates would not be seated at the 1980 National Convention because the Wisconsin delegate selection system violated the National Party's rules, an original action was brought in the Wisconsin Supreme Court on behalf of the State, seeking a declaration that such system was constitutional as applied to appellants (the National Party and Democratic National Committee) and that they could not lawfully refuse to seat the Wisconsin delegation. Concluding, inter alia, that the State had not impermissibly impaired the National Party's freedom of political association protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that the State's delegate selection system was constitutional and binding upon appellants and that they could not refuse to seat delegates chosen in accord with Wisconsin law.

Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 120-126.

(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 120-122.

(b) Wisconsin's asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State's substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 124-126.

93 Wis. 2d 473, 287 N. W. 2d 519, reversed.

STEWART, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BURGER, C. J., and BRENNAN, WHITE, MARSHALL, and STEVENS, JJ., joined. POWELL, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BLACKMUN and REHNQUIST, JJ., joined, post, p. 126.

[...]

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 110-112:

The election laws of Wisconsin allow non-Democrats including members of other parties and independents—to vote in the Democratic primary without regard to party affiliation and without requiring a public declaration of party preference. The voters in Wisconsin's "open" primary express their choice among Presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination; they do not vote for delegates to the National Convention. Delegates to the National Convention are chosen separately, after the primary, at caucuses of persons who have stated their affiliation with the Party. But these delegates, under Wisconsin law, are bound to vote at the National Convention in accord with the results of the open primary election.

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 109:

1 Rule 2A provides in full:

"Participation in the delegate selection process in primaries or caucuses shall be restricted to Democratic voters only who publicly declare their party preference and have that preference publicly recorded. Documentary evidence of a process which complies with this rule shall accompany all state Delegate Selection Plans upon their submission to the National Party. Such rules, when approved by the Compliance Review Commission and implemented shall constitute adequate provisions within the meaning of Section 9 of the 1972 Democratic National Convention mandate."

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 110:

2 Rule 12B of the Delegate Selection Rules for the 1980 Democratic National Convention provides in part:

"At all stages of the delegates selection process, delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or if there is no binding primary, the convention and caucus participants except that preferences securing less than the applicable percentage of votes cast for the delegates to the National Convention shall not be awarded any delegates."

Rule 12D provides in full:

"For the purpose of fairly reflecting the division of preferences, the nonbinding advisory presidential preference portion of primaries shall not be considered a step in the delegate selection process." (Emphasis added.)

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 121:

The issue is whether the State may compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the rules of the Party. And this issue was resolved, we believe, in Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477.

Democratic Party, 450 U.S. 107 (1981) at 124:

IV

We must consider, finally, whether the State has compelling interests that justify the imposition of its will upon the appellants. See Cousins, 419 U. S., at 489. "Neither the right to associate nor the right to participate in political activities is absolute." CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 567. The State asserts a compelling interest in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters. 9 But all those interests go to the conduct of the Presidential preference primary-not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. 3 Therefore, the interests advanced by the State "' do not justify

The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-04-25   16:11:26 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#18. To: nolu chan (#17)

To: tpaine It does not appear that Barnett in Our Republican Constitution, or in his legal textbook, Constitutional Law, Cases in Context, (1,348 pp.), discusses primary elections and the law.

Below, I present a couple of U.S. Supreme Court opinions which are on topic and may be of interest. Freedom of association, to associate or not associate, appears to be an important and relevant constitutional provision.

--- "The State has a substantial interest in the manner in which its elections are conducted, and the National Party has a substantial interest in the manner in which the delegates to its National Convention are selected. But these interests are not incompatible, and to the limited extent they clash in this case, both interests can be preserved. The National Party rules do not forbid Wisconsin to conduct an open primary. But if Wisconsin does open its primary, it cannot require that Wisconsin delegates to the National Party Convention vote there in accordance with the primary results, if to do so would violate Party rules. Since the Wisconsin Supreme Court has declared that the National Party cannot disqualify delegates who are bound to vote in accordance with the results of the Wisconsin open primary, its judgment is reversed."

From the above decision, I'd conclude that SCOTUS says that political parties CANNOT disqualify delegates that do not follow party hacks orders..

Correct?

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-25   23:22:07 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#19. To: tpaine (#18)

From the above decision, I'd conclude that SCOTUS says that political parties CANNOT disqualify delegates that do not follow party hacks orders..

The opposite, see the Syllabus of Democratic Party. The State cannot enforce a law which infringes upon the National Party's freedom to gather in association.

Held: Wisconsin cannot constitutionally compel the National Party to seat a delegation chosen in a way that violates the Party's rules. Cousins v. Wigoda, 419 U. S. 477, controlling. Pp. 120-126.

(a) The National Party and its adherents enjoy a constitutionally protected right of political association under the First Amendment, and this freedom to gather in association for the purpose of advancing shared beliefs is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from infringement by any State, and necessarily presupposes the freedom to identify the people who constitute the association and to limit the association to those people only. Here, the members of the National Party, speaking through their rules, chose to define their associational rights by limiting those who could participate in any binding process leading to the selection of delegates to their National Convention. Pp. 120-122.

(b) Wisconsin's asserted compelling interests in preserving the overall integrity of the electoral process, providing secrecy of the ballot, increasing voter participation in primaries, and preventing harassment of voters, go to the conduct of the open Presidential preference primary, not to the imposition of voting requirements upon those who, in a separate process, are eventually selected as delegates. Therefore, such asserted interests do not justify the State's substantial intrusion into the associational freedom of members of the National Party. Pp. 124-126.

See also the Cousins Syllabus, the precedent upon which the Court relied in Democratic Party.

2. In the selection of candidates for national office a National Party Convention serves the pervasive national interest, which is paramount to any interest of a State in protecting the integrity of its electoral process, and the Circuit Court erred in issuing an injunction that abridged the associational rights of petitioners and their Party and the Party's right to determine the composition of its National Convention in accordance with Party standards. Pp. 487-491.

In #4, you stated,

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

I believe you may need an Amendment to establish a constitutionally compatible fashion to choose candidates.

See Laurence H. Tribe, American Constitutional Law, 2nd Ed., at 1688,

Nearly all of the Constitution's self-executing, and therefore judicially enforceable, guarantees of individual rights shield individuals only from government action.[1] Accordingly, when litigants claim the protection of suc guarantees, courts must first determine whether it is indeed government action—state or federal [2]—that the litigants are challenging.[3]

Footnote [1] offers in part,

1. The Bill of Rights, the first eight amendments to the Constitution, on their face constrain only the condct of the federal government, and the the extent of their incorporation in the fourteenth amendment due process clause, see § 11-2, supra, also limit state governments. Similarly, the prohibitions found in article I, §§ 9 and 10, as well as the guarantees of the fifteenth, nineteenth, twenty-fourth and twenty-sixth amendments, restrain only federal and state government action. The fourteenth amendment due process and equal protection clauses limit only state action. Congress may protect the privileges or immunities of national citizensip by regulating private conduct, see § 5-14, supra, but the fourteenth amendment grants courts the power to protect such rights only from state action.

Footnote [2] clarifies the contextual meaning of "state action."

2. Throughout this chapter, the words "state action" will denote action by any level of governent, from local to national.

A political party is a private organization, not a government entity.

An Amendment could be fashioned to define minimum standards that would govern how political parties select nominees for office and provide for enforcement.

I had not spent any thought on this, but granting more power to the federal government is always fraught with the perils of unintended consequences. If an amendment made holding primaries in each state a party requirement, this could prove to be an insurmountable challenge to third parties. So, I am hesitant to consider empowering the Federal government to regulate the parties.

nolu chan  posted on  2016-04-26   14:50:13 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 19.

#20. To: nolu chan (#19)

At #4, I stated,

This must stop, -- And candidates chosen in a constitutionally compatible fashion. --

-- Certainly, this might require a constitutional amendment, but this election cycle shows a clear need for reform.

Do you (or anyone?) have any thoughts on this specific problem?

I believe you may need an Amendment to establish a constitutionally compatible fashion to choose candidates. -- See Laurence H. Tribe,

Thanks for your agreement, -- but asking me to then 'see Tribe', a big govt enabler, is counterproductive..

An Amendment could be fashioned to define minimum standards that would govern how political parties select nominees for office and provide for enforcement. ----- I had not spent any thought on this, but granting more power to the federal government is always fraught with the perils of unintended consequences.

Amendments do not necessarily grant power to government.

If an amendment made holding primaries in each state a party requirement, this could prove to be an insurmountable challenge to third parties. So, I am hesitant to consider empowering the Federal government to regulate the parties.

So would I be, - more than hesitant. Obviously, the Amendment would be very hard to craft in order to protect our freedom to select candidates...

Thanks for your input...

tpaine  posted on  2016-04-26 15:18:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 19.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com