Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Constitution Party of Wisconsin: 'Terry Larson is the Constitutionalist Candidate for Attorney General'

For Immediate Release – June 20, 2018 

The Constitution Party of Wisconsin is pleased to announce that Terry Larson, the party’s Communications Director, is the Constitutionalist candidate for Wisconsin Attorney General.
As Attorney General, Terry Larson will oppose the enforcement of Supreme Court opinions as “the law of the land”.
He will stop same-sex marriages which are not legal in our state, take action against anyone who damages or removes any veterans’ or Civil War memorials or monuments, and see federal immigration laws and/or similar state laws enforced.

“I will fight the infringement of all constitutional rights, especially the right to free speech and the freedom to keep and bear arms which we have under both our federal and state constitutions,” Larson said.

Terry Larson is the author of “The Christian Response to Homosexual Marriage: How Progressives are Ending America” published by World Ahead Press on June 26, 2017; exactly two years after the Supreme Court’s infamous Obergefell vs Hodges decision was released.

As he wrote, “If everyone agrees, if no one can be bothered to say anything, when five unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court give us their opinion and tell us that is the law, then we are done with this Constitution and we are done with this constitutional republic.”

Terry Larson has been a technical writer and publications project manager for agricultural, construction and consumer equipment manufacturers for over 25 years. He is a WELS church member, married with five children.

Terry Larson is campaigning for the office of Wisconsin Attorney General in response to the Obergefell SCOTUS decision, and the removal of Civil War memorials by Madison Mayor Paul Soglin in August 2017.

Riley Hood: 'Who Appointed Sandra Day O’Connor?'

Riley J. Hood

“The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest of men are exalted.” Psalm 12:8

O’Connor was the first woman appointed to the US Supreme Court.  She is quoted as saying “The power I exert on the court depends on the power of my arguments, not on my gender.” She also asserted judicial supremacy stating “Apparently a great many people have forgotten that the framers of our Constitution went to such great effort to create an independent judicial branch that would not be subject to retaliation by either the executive branch or the legislative branch because of some decision made by those judges.”

In 1982, she wrote the SCOTUS opinion in Mississippi University for Women v. Hogan. The court ruled 5-4 that a nursing school had to admit men after having been a women’s-only institution. In 1992 she upheld “legalized abortion” by co-authoring the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey affirming Roe v. Wade. In 2003 she voted to strike down State Anti-Sodomy Laws by writing a concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas.

So, who appointed this tyrant?

O’Connor was involved in Arizona politics. In 1974 she was elected to the Maricopa County Superior Court.  In 1979 she served on Arizona’s Court of Appeals. In 1981 Ronald Reagan nominated her to the US Supreme Court, and she was unanimously confirmed by the US Senate.  
In every election the Republican Party promises to appoint decent judges, and yet the GOP has a long record of bait and switch. They nominate monstrosities who are as evil as those people put forward by the Democrats.

The Milwaukee County Constitution Party’s position is crystal clear, “We call attention to the following provisions of the Constitution: Article 3, Section 1: The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, the tenure of Federal Judges is not for life, but merely during good behavior.”

“Article 2, Section 4: all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. ‘All civil officers,’ that includes judges.”

Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2 says: “the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction … with such Exceptions and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make." Note that the Constitution gives Congress the power to make exceptions to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. We support legislation which would remove from Federal appellate review jurisdiction matters involving the acknowledgement of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government. O’Connor’s above statement about the founding fathers isn’t based on ignorance, it is a bold-faced lie. Checks and balances should apply to SCOTUS.

Tuesday, July 10, 2018

LP.org: 'SCOTUS nominee thinks it’s OK to ‘disappear’ citizens when fighting terrorism'

 The Constitution and Bill of Rights shall not be suspended even during time of war.Independent Political Report 

On July 9, President Donald Trump nominated D.C. Circuit Court Judge Brett Kavanaugh to fill retiring Justice Anthony Kennedy’s seat on the U.S. Supreme Court. Kavanaugh once served as a law clerk for Justice Kennedy, who reportedly recommended him to Trump as a suitable replacement. Libertarians would appreciate aspects of his judicial record, which leans toward constitutional originalism on most issues, but Kavanaugh also has a significant dark side. He’s willing to sacrifice our most fundamental liberties in the name of fighting terrorism.

“Unfortunately, Brett Kavanaugh has a troubling track record of giving a pass to excesses in the war on terrorism,” said Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark. “It’s good that he’s a Second Amendment supporter, but it’s unacceptable that he’s also willing to suspend the Fourth and Fifth Amendments when he deems it necessary.”
When Amir Mohamed Meshal, a natural-born citizen of the United States, fled from Somalia’s civil war into Kenya in 2007, he was captured by the U.S. Combined Joint Task Force. The American Civil Liberties Union complaint filed on his behalf claimed that Meshal was “interrogated more than thirty times by U.S. officials who failed to adhere to the most elementary requirements of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Torture Victim Protection Act of 1991,” and that “U.S. officials repeatedly threatened Mr. Meshal with torture, forced disappearance, and other serious harm.”..

To read more, click here.

Reason.com: 'Libertarian Party Rebuffs Mises Uprising'

by Matt Welch, Reason.com

The Libertarian Party on Monday afternoon re-elected in a surprising first-ballot landslide incumbent Chair Nicholas Sarwark to an unprecedented third consecutive two-year term. In doing so, the nation's third-largest political party swatted down what was supposed to be the most contentious challenge at its biennial national convention—to a leadership that was considered by various critics to be too operationally incremental, too ideologically tepid, and too (in the words of Ludwig von Mises Institute Senior Fellow and popular podcaster Tom Woods at a nearby New Orleans rally Saturday) "SJW-friendly."

Instead, Sarwark's main opponent, the Mises Caucus-endorsed Joshua Smith, stumbled badly in a defensive debate performance at the New Orleans Hyatt Regency Sunday night, and ended up Monday on the business end of a 65 percent-22 percent rout. In the vice chair race, two-term incumbent Arvin Vohra, who has become a lightning rod over the past year-plus for intentionally provocative public comments such as "Bad Idea: School Shootings. Good Idea: School Board Shootings," was resoundingly drummed out of office, never receiving more than 11 percent of the vote in three rounds of balloting that ended Tuesday with a positivity-exuding 33-year-old finance/tech/consulting guy named Alex Merced squeaking past the 50 percent finish line.

"What I think the race shows is that if you want to change the direction of the Libertarian Party, if you have new ideas about how we can grow and reach new members, the election of Merced to vice chair shows that the delegates want that kind of change," Sarwark told me Tuesday afternoon. "If your campaign is seen, or has themes of trying to kick people out, of trying to attack people like Gov. Weld, or... basically anyone—if your campaign was seen as trying to drive people out of the party, the delegates soundly rejected that. And I think that that is the biggest takeaway from the convention."..

To read article in full, click here.

North Dakota Libertarian Candidate Files Lawsuit to Force a Recount of the Primary Vote

Ballot Access News

On June 9, Roland Riemers, Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State of North Dakota in the June 12 primary, asked the State Supreme Court to order the Secretary of State to recount the primary vote for Secretary of State. Riemers v Jaeger. The North Dakota law says that no one can be considered nominated in a partisan primary (even if he or she got the most votes) if the candidate doesn’t poll at least 300 votes. The state says Riemers only got 247 votes.

The recount law, 16.1-16-01, says, “A recount must be conducted when: (a) any individual failed to be nominated in a primary election by one percent or less of the highest vote cast for a candidate for the office sought.” North Dakota primaries are open. The single piece of paper lists candidates of all the qualified parties, although there are columns for each party, and the instructions warn voters to only cast votes in one party’s primary. The Republican whose name was printed on the ballot for Secretary of State got 54,563 votes. Riemers argues that 1% of 54,563 is 546, and since he only missed qualifying by 53 votes, 53 is less than 546, and therefore he is entitled to a recount. The state thinks that the 1% tabulation should only apply to the vote cast inside the Libertarian primary, but Riemers says the statute does not mention the party vote. He also points to the fact that the tabulating machines disqualified about 2,000 votes for Secretary of State, with no explanation as to why.
The State Supreme Court is free to either hear this case, or reject it.

Montana State Trial Court Removes Green Party from the Ballot

Ballot Access News

On July 9, a Montana state trial court removed the Green Party from the ballot, finding that it was 43 signatures short of the number needed. The state requires 5,000 valid signatures, and all sides agree that this requirement was met. But there must also be approximately 130 signatures from each of one-third of the legislative districts. The court found that nine signatures are invalid because the signer didn’t put the date; five signatures are invalid because the signer only signed, but didn’t also print; and invalidated six signatures that the state had thought were valid because, the judge wrote, the person who signed was not the person who was listed as the registered voter.

Here is the 19-page opinion in Larson v State of Montana, DDV-2018-2945. The Green Party has the option of now bringing a federal lawsuit, arguing that the March 15 petition deadline for new party petitions is unconstitutionally early. Montana has harsh winters, and there is no doubt that the party would have had enough valid signatures if the deadline had not been so early. The party collected additional signatures after the deadline had passed, and tried to submit them, but they were refused. If they had been accepted, the distribution requirement would have been met and the party would be on the ballot.

The Green Party already had a primary in Montana on June 5, and the votes were counted, so there is no problem identifying who the Green Party nominees are this year.

Similar early deadlines for new parties have been declared unconstitutional in Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California (for purposes of the presidential election), Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Utah (in special elections).

New Jersey Globe Notes that Registration in New Jersey Minor Parties has Doubled in Last 18 Months

Ballot Access News

The New Jersey Globe, a web newsletter about New Jersey politics and government, here notes that registration into unqualified parties in New Jersey has doubled in the last 18 months, and is now over 40,000. The only reason unqualified parties in New Jersey have any registered members is due to a winning lawsuit won in 2001. Before the state court opinion in Council of Alternative Political Parties v State, all voters were forced to register Democratic, Republican, or independent.