On Monday the Supreme Court saved the Constitution. The Democrats and the ultra-Left attempted to demolish the Constitution by saying that American citizens had no say in choosing the president‚ that only prosecutors and grand juries had that power. They used a wholly spurious reference to Civil War laws to allege that former President Donald Trump was an “insurrectionist” like Gen. Stonewall Jackson. Thanks to the Lord God Jehovah‚ the Supreme Court saw right through the Democrat lies and saved our sacred Constitution. Glory Be! Image: This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license. READ MORE from Ben Stein: No Crime and Punishment The Democrats’ New Form of Civil War An Economist Looks at the Immigration Crisis Something Bad Has Happened to the Grand Old Party The post SCOTUS Saves Our Constitution appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

Trump v. Anderson has been decided by a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court on the question of whether the Supreme Court of Colorado erred in requiring GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump to be excluded from the primary ballot. The Supreme Court‚ in a 9–0 per curiam opinion‚ ruled that the Colorado court was wrong and that Trump’s name should not be removed from the ballot. READ MORE: Trump’s Reelection Effort Is Becoming the Hero’s Journey The case against Trump was based upon a petition filed by certain Colorado voters maintaining that Trump’s actions following the 2020 presidential election amounted to “engag[ing] in insurrection.” They argued that his name ought to be prevented from appearing on the Colorado ballot because under Section 3 of the 14th Amendment‚ he had already disqualified himself from holding office. Historically‚ that provision was aimed at former officeholders who had sworn allegiance to the United States Constitution‚ later joined the Confederacy in its rebellion during the American Civil War‚ but then sought to hold office once again following the end of hostilities.  The opinion’s key holding‚ on which all nine justices agreed‚ is based upon the recognition that the 14th Amendment‚ in certain respects‚ “expand[ed] federal power at the expense of state autonomy.” One such case is found in Section 5 of the amendment‚ stating that Congress alone is given “power to enforce” the “provisions” of that amendment‚ including Section 3. Though “States may disqualify persons” from “holding  … state office‚” the states‚ says the court‚ “have no power under the Constitution to enforce Section 3 with respect to federal offices‚ especially the Presidency.” To allow individual states to enforce Section 3 would open up the elective process to what the court calls a “patchwork” of varying standards and the possibility that a “candidate would be declared ineligible in some States‚ but not others.” That would be destabilizing enough‚ but‚ as the opinion points out: The disruption would be all the more acute—and could nullify the votes of millions and change the election results—if Section 3 enforcement were attempted after the Nation had voted. Nothing in the Constitution requires that we endure such chaos—arriving at any time or different times‚ up to and perhaps beyond Inauguration. Throughout the opinion‚ the court stresses that it is up to Congress‚ under Section 5‚ to pass legislation to enforce Section 3. Congress “enjoys power to enforce the [14th] Amendment‚” which “grants new power to Congress to enforce the provisions of the Amendment against the States.” In other words‚ the U.S. Congress is the enforcing entity that is given power to act legislatively to set out standards and processes by which Section 3 disqualification can occur. The per curiam opinion’s insistence on congressional action caused four justices‚ three liberals and one conservative‚ to write concurring opinions. Note that this did not destroy the unanimity on the fundamental holding of the case — Colorado cannot pursue Section 3 disqualification for federal offices. Justice Amy Coney Barrett provided a very short concurrence saying that the court should have shown more judicial restraint. Once it had found that state governments had no power to enforce Section 3‚ that determination was enough to decide the case. The three liberal justices who filed concurrences (Sonia Sotomayor‚ Elena Kagan‚ and Ketanji Brown Jackson) complained along similar lines that the court need not have prescribed the path of legislative action under Section 5 as the only constitutional means of disqualifying a political candidate. That complaint ignores the plain language of Section 5 when it says: “The Congress shall have power to enforce‚ by appropriate legislation‚ the provisions of this article.” All in all‚ despite some rumbles in the concurrences‚ the measured restraint of the per curiam opinion accomplished four important things: (1) It kept the court divorced from doing what the Congress is called upon to do — provide a structure by which the serious remedy of disqualification from office can be carefully and dispassionately considered. (2) It raised a barrier against post-election efforts to negate already-tallied electoral results. (3) It preserved the voting rights of millions of Americans in state primaries to choose the candidates of their choice. Finally‚ (4) it united the justices‚ despite their varied political hues‚ against a legal claim that all nine knew to be unworkable‚ unproven‚ and unconstitutional. Dr. John A. Sparks is the retired Dean of Arts &; Letters at Grove City College in Grove City‚ Pennsylvania. He is a fellow in that college’s Institute for Faith and Freedom. Sparks is a graduate of Grove City College and the University of Michigan Law School‚ a member of the State Bar of Pennsylvania‚ and a regular contributor on Supreme Court developments.  The post Nine Justices Preserve President Trump’s Ballot Status appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

On Tuesday‚ residents of San Francisco headed to the polls to cast their ballots on two major ballot measures that sound as though conservatives could have written them. Proposition F and E would mandate drug screening for individuals who receive public benefits and would make it easier for police to chase down criminals. On today’s episode of The Spectator P.M. Podcast‚ hosts Ellie Gardey and Aubrey Gulick discuss the widespread support these ballot measures have received. They point out that even the mayor of San Francisco‚ London Breed‚ has decided that coming out in support of the propositions is a good idea as she faces a potentially difficult reelection campaign. Listen in to hear the whole story! Like and share The Spectator P.M. Podcast‚ and be sure to tune in to our next episode! Read Aubrey and Ellie’s writing here and here. Listen to the Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Ellie Gardey on Spotify. Watch the Spectator P.M. Podcast with Aubrey Gulick and Ellie Gardey on Rumble. READ MORE: Trump’s Reelection Effort Is Becoming the Hero’s Journey Dr. Phil Is Based Now? The post <;i>;The Spectator P.M. Podcast<;/i>; Ep. 28: Is San Francisco Turning Conservative? appeared first on The American Spectator | USA News and Politics.

“Israel’s military industrial complex uses the occupied‚ Palestinian territories as a testing ground for weaponry and surveillance technology that they then export around the world to despots and democracies” according to journalist […]

One thing you never seem to have enough of is time‚ especially when Daylight Saving Time strikes. Burger King wants to soften the blow with deals.

Brandon "Sad Papi" Skier is a talented cook with millions of followers on social media - and a new cookbook. Read our exclusive interview with the foodfluencer.

If you're a frequent Aldi shopper who doesn't always have cash or cards on hand‚ you might wonder if the chain accepts Apple Pay. We have the answer.

'What better solution than finding people who have no connection to the American people‚ arming them‚ and then sending them out to oppress us?' Retired Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor joined popular journalist Tucker Carlson in a recent interview where the military expert warned Americans against allowing illegal aliens to serve in the armed forces. The Democrat-proposed “Courage to Serve Act“ would offer illegal migrants an expedited path to citizenship if they serve in the U.S. military as it continues missing recruitment goals thanks to unpopular globalist wars and far-left ideology being pushed on soldiers. First you allow your country to be invaded‚ then you hand automatic weapons to the people who invaded it. Doug Macgregor on the worst idea congress has ever had. pic.twitter.com/MoG4FMoYQ2— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) March 4‚ 2024 Tucker explained the Democrat Party wants to “allow an invasion of the country‚ not use the military to stop it‚ and then populate the military with the people who are invading the country and hope for the best.” He also pointed out this would be one way a police state could easily be created in America where citizens are threatened at the barrel of a gun by foreign invaders.Save 40% on DNA Force Plus NOW! Try it today and see why so many listeners have made it an essential part of their daily routine! Col. Macgregor suggested the current ruling class in America appears set to burn the country down and build their “Brave New World” on the ashes of the Republic. He continued to note many of the illegals coming over now have no allegiance to American values or the Constitution and are instead looking for the benefits advertised by the Biden administration and Soros-run NGOs. “None of these people are Americans‚ we know from having interviewed them they have no aspiration to be Americans. What they aspire to is to get in to the consumption machine. Get the ticket of entry‚ the free check‚ the free phone‚ the free transportation tickets‚ the free food‚ free medical care‚” he said. The political establishment is telling the illegals they’re bringing in that Americans who disagree with the status quo are criminals‚ Macgregor added before asking‚ “What better solution than finding people who have no connection to the American people‚ arming them‚ and then sending them out to oppress us?” Check out the videos below for proof that there are not just military-aged men‚ but actual military men illegally entering America: