McDaniel: Second Amendment An Individual Right

By Senator Chris McDaniel

Liberals will never tire in attempting to erode the Constitutional rights of gun owners.

Gun-control advocates complain that the founding fathers never intended firearms to go unregulated, invoking arguments made by United States Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer — a dissenter in the 2008 case of District of Columbia v. Heller, a Supreme Court decision which overturned a Washington, D.C. handgun ban.

As part of his dissent in Heller, Breyer argued that Madison only drafted the Second Amendment because some feared that Congress would call up the state militias and nationalize them. Madison only proposed the amendment, he maintained, to appease skeptics and to “get this document ratified.” [Read more…]

McDaniel: Gorsuch and the Hope for Restoration

By Senator Chris McDaniel

Now that President Trump has made his choice for the Court, choosing Judge Neil Gorsuch, which I think is an excellent selection, the brutal fight for his confirmation is about to begin. But just because we could soon control the Court’s direction, does not mean we should place all of our faith in it. [Read more…]

Anderson: Mississippi Moves to Protect Religious Freedom on Marriage

By Ryan T. Anderson, The Daily Signal, April 1, 2016

This morning, the Mississippi House passed a bill, HB 1523, protecting religious freedom. If the House disposes of a procedural maneuver that has delayed a final vote until Monday, the bill will go to the governor’s desk for his signature, as the Senate passed the bill earlier this week. The bill is good policy and the governor should sign it. [Read more…]

Congressional Control of the Court: An Excerpt from The Last Jeffersonian

This is a small section from my book, The Last Jeffersonian, about an episode in 1869-70 when Congress took firm control of the Supreme Court.  Since the Court is now in the news with the passing of Justice Scalia, and there are arguments about Obama’s nomination and the Senate’s decision to take it up or not, I thought this might shed some light on the fact that Congress has a lot of power over the Court and has used it in the past:

The nation’s currency had been backed by gold until the rise of Abraham Lincoln to the presidency in 1861. Though historically known as the gatekeepers of the gold standard, the Republican Party had inflationary ideas during the Civil War that essentially ended gold’s supremacy. In 1862, to help finance the war against the South, as well as their other spending schemes, Republicans, with the urging of Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, passed the Legal Tender Act, an inflationary plan that allowed for the creation and circulation of a national paper currency, called Greenbacks, that did not have the backing of gold, though the Constitution specifically gives Congress the authority to “coin money,” not to print it. In all, Congress issued more than $450 million in paper dollars during the four-year conflict, producing ample inflation to double the cost of living. The United States had not seen that level of inflation since the days of the American Revolution with the old, worthless Continental dollar.[i]

In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled the Legal Tender Act unconstitutional in the case of Hepburn v. Griswold, preventing the issuance of paper dollars. The Chief Justice in that case, who sided with the majority, was none other than former Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase, who had advocated for passage of the law while in Lincoln’s cabinet. The Chase Court’s ruling angered inflationist Republicans in Congress, and they sought to re-order the Court to change the decision. In the late 1860s, in a move to prevent President Andrew Johnson from naming any justices to the Court, Congress, using its constitutional authority, had taken away two seats when they became vacant during Johnson’s tenure, reducing the number of seats to seven. But with Republican Ulysses S. Grant in the White House in 1869, Congress reinstated those seats on the Court to place it back to its present total of nine. President Grant then nominated two new Stalwart Republican justices in 1870, in an effort to “pack it,” and the Court reversed itself that same year, in the case of Knox v. Lee, allowing Congress the authority to issue paper currency.[ii]

[i] Irwin Unger, The Greenback Era: A Social and Political History of American Finance, 1865-1879 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1964), 15-16.

[ii] Kermit L. Hall, ed., The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 685, 498-499; Sidney Ratner, “Was the Supreme Court Packed By President Grant?” Political Science Quarterly (September 1935): 343-358.

McDaniel: Trump’s Position on Eminent Domain is Troubling

By Senator Chris McDaniel

Donald Trump has proven to be a political game changer.  His willingness to take on the establishment is inspiring.  Along with millions of others, he has garnered my attention.  He endorsed me in my race for Senate, and I remain grateful for his support.eminent-domain

But his continued insistence on defending the abusive use of eminent domain should concern all who value the Constitution.

In writing this, I know I stand to offend many of my supporters.  But I write this for them.  My oath is to the Constitution, so remaining silent in the face of its violation would be an indictment against everything we have fought to achieve.  Even if it hurts me politically, I must defend it and our civil liberties, or else I become what we have struggled to vanquish. [Read more…]

Mississippi Pep: Now Your Community Belongs to the Federal Government: Obama to Force Integrate Neighborhoods

From Mississippi Pep:

President Obama said Saturday he will use the power of the federal government to pressure communities to integrate low-income minorities into affluent areas.img_2389

Obama said his administration is implementing a new rule that will require communities to frequently review the racial and socio-economic makeup of local neighborhoods and regularly report the results to the federal government.

“Just a few weeks ago, the Supreme Court ruled that policies segregating minorities in poor neighborhoods, even unintentionally, are against the law,” Obama said, referencing a ruling on the Fair Housing Act largely ignored by the media due to attention on the Obamacare and gay marriage rulings.

Read More at Washington Examiner

Gay Marriage and the Cause of Civil Disobedience

Ryan S. Walters | @ryanswalters73

Like a lot of conservatives, I was disgusted, though not surprised, with the Supreme Court’s ruling on gay marriage. In fact, I predicted the outcome to several people the day before it was released. I knew it was coming, particularly after the Obamacare ruling, but I earnestly hoped to soon see a wave of protest and civil disobedience to the Court’s mandate. And it looks like that just might be in the works, and I’m sure glad of it. [Read more…]