John Hanno – Page 125 – The Tarbabys Blog

What the framers said about the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause

ABC News

What the framers said about the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause: Analysis

Steven Portnoy – December 29, 2023

The intent of the 14th Amendment’s disqualification clause is central to the debate over whether former President Donald Trump’s name should be stricken from GOP primary ballots now that the issue has landed at the steps of the Supreme Court.

Judges and officials across many states around the country are now grappling with language that was written a year after the end of the Civil War. The words “insurrection” and “rebellion” had certain meanings to those who had them added to the Constitution, and a key question for arbiters now is whether the language drafted a century-and-a-half ago should be applied to Trump’s role in the Jan. 6 riot.

As it originally passed the House, the 14th Amendment’s third section was not nearly as broad as the version now being invoked to strike Trump’s name from the ballot. It was narrowly crafted to apply only to those who willingly took part in the Civil War, and it was only meant to deprive former confederates of their right to cast ballots in federal elections. It also had an expiration date.

PHOTO: Former President Donald Trump greets the crowd at a campaign rally, Dec. 16, 2023, in Durham, N.H. (Reba Saldanha/AP)

“Sec. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection, giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for President and Vice President of the United States,” the original, House-passed version read, according to congressional records of the era.

The Senate spent several days debating the House-passed amendment in the spring of 1866. While the birthright citizenship provisions in Section 1 earned a lot of time in debate, Section 3 was also the subject of an intense back-and-forth on the floor. The transcripts can be read in the Congressional Globe, a forerunner to the Congressional Record.

Sen. Jacob Howard of Michigan, who led the Republicans in debate, insisted that it wouldn’t be enough to deprive the former confederates of their right to vote in federal elections — he wanted them banished from government service altogether.

“I should prefer a clause prohibiting all persons who have participated in the rebellion, and who were over twenty-five years of age at the breaking out of the rebellion, from all participation in offices, either Federal or State, throughout the United States,” Howard said on the Senate floor on May 23, 1866. “I think such a provision would be a benefit to the nation.”

After about a week of discussions with colleagues, Howard offered the Sec. 3 language that was ultimately ratified. Howard’s revision removed specific references to “the” rebellion and added an important qualifier: those who were to be excluded from government service would have to have violated prior oaths to defend the constitution by having “engaged in insurrection or rebellion against [it] or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Senators rejected various attempts to re-insert the word “voluntarily,” or to restrict the exclusion to those who violated their oaths during the time they were still serving in office.

There was a great deal of concern voiced in debate that Howard’s exclusion clause might leave the South ungovernable, with so many confederates poised to be disqualified from serving, even in state posts. Opponents expressed fear that the provision might alienate Union-loyal supporters in state legislatures. Nevertheless, the version Howard introduced made it through the entire ratification process and became effective on July 9, 1868.

In 2024, the originalists on the Supreme Court will likely seek to determine whether the ratifiers could have had it in mind 158 years ago that Sec. 3 might not only be applied to the “late insurrection,” as the House-passed version originally had it, but also to any other rebellion that might later take place.

But originalists might take note of what Sen. Peter Van Winkle of West Virginia said as he sought to have the threshold for congressional amnesty in Howard’s version lowered to a simple majority, rather than two-thirds.

MORE: Trump ineligible to run for president in Colorado because of Jan. 6, court rules in historic move

“This is to go into our Constitution and to stand to govern future insurrection as well as the present; and I should like to have that point definitely understood,” Van Winkle said at the time.

It’s also worth noting that there was just a single reference in the Senate debate to the fact that the president and vice president were not explicitly mentioned in Howard’s draft as “officer(s) of the United States,” the way members of Congress and state officials had been itemized in the text. Would the disqualification clause of the amendment not cover the top posts in the executive branch?

“Why did you omit to exclude them?” asked Maryland Democratic Sen. Reverdy Johnson.

Maine’s Lot Morrill jumped in to clarify.

“Let me call the Senator’s attention to the words ‘or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States,'” Morrill said, ending the discussion on that point.

Earlier this week, the Colorado Republican Party asked the Supreme Court to answer whether the office of the president is covered by the amendment. Colorado district judge Sarah Wallace ruled last month that it is not. The Colorado Supreme Court overturned her finding last week and a majority of Colorado’s seven justices wrote that the former president “engaged in insurrection.”

Trump is facing more than a dozen tests over his ballot eligibility under the 14th Amendment in various state and federal courts, with challenges or appeals pending in about 15 states.

Michigan, Minnesota and California have kept Trump on their ballots despite efforts to disqualify him.

In a statement Thursday following the decision by Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows ruling Trump would not appear on the Republican 2024 ballot, Trump campaign spokesman Steven Cheung said they would “quickly file a legal objection in state court.”

He added that Bellows was a “hyper-partisan Biden-supporting Democrat who has decided to interfere in the presidential election.”

Trump is expected to appeal the decision to disqualify him from the Colorado ballot to the Supreme Court.

“The Colorado Supreme Court issued a completely flawed decision tonight …. We have full confidence that the U.S. Supreme Court will quickly rule in our favor and finally put an end to these un-American lawsuits,” Cheung said in a statement, in part, after the ruling.

No, Putin Is Not One of the Year’s ‘Winners’

Foreign Press FP

No, Putin Is Not One of the Year’s ‘Winners’

Seven ways the exodus of Western companies has cratered the Russian economy.

By Jeffery A. Sonnenfeld, the Lester Crown professor in management practice and a senior associate dean at the Yale School of Management, and Steven Tian, the director of research at the Yale Chief Executive Leadership Institute. – December 22, 2023

Russian President Vladimir Putin holds his year-end press conference at Gostiny Dvor exhibition hall in central Moscow.

This is perhaps the most dire moment for Ukraine since Russia’s invasion in February 2022, with the military situation on the battlefield seemingly stalemated, Western political support wavering under the weight of political dysfunction, and war in the Middle East diverting resources and attention.

Nevertheless, many reflexive cynics in the Western press are going too far in crediting Ukraine’s adversary, Russian President Vladimir Putin, with one Wall Street Journal columnist even declaring Putin one of the “winners of the year.” We cannot fall into the trap of thinking that all is good for Putin, and we cannot jettison effective measures to pressure him. Just this week, the New York Times even suggested that the exit of more than 1,000 multinational companies from Russia has backfired by enriching Putin and his cronies.

All the evidence suggests there are, in fact, ample costs of the business exodus. Economic data clearly shows that the Russian economy has paid a huge price for the loss of those businesses. Putin continues to conceal the required disclosure of Russia’s national income statistics—obviously because they are nothing to brag out.

Transferring nearly worthless assets does not make Russia or Putin cronies wealthier. While Putin expropriated some assets of Asian and Western companies, most firms simply abandoned them, eagerly writing down billions of dollars in assets. They were rewarded for doing so as their market capitalization soared upon the news of their exits. Russia is not only suing foreign companies for leaving, as ExxonMobil’s and BP’s departures ended the technology needed for exploration, but Russian oil giant Rosneft even sued Reuters for reporting on it. The massive supply disruptions shuttering Russian factories across sectors were described in on-the-ground reporting by the Journal, which resulted in the arrest and now nine-month imprisonment of the heroic journalist who documented the truth.

Consider the following economic statistics we have verified.

Talent flight. In the first months after the invasion, an estimated 500,000 individuals fled Russia, many of whom were exactly the highly educated, technically skilled workers Russia cannot afford to lose. In the year-plus since, that number has ballooned to at least 1 million individuals. By some counts, Russia lost 10 percent of its entire technology workforce from this unprecedented talent flight.

Capital flight. Per the Russian Central Bank’s own reports, a record $253 billion in private capital was pulled out of Russia between February 2022 and June 2023, which was more than four times the amount of prior capital outflows. By some measures, Russia lost 33 percent of the total number of millionaires living in Russia when those individuals fled.

Loss of Western technology and knowhow. This occurred across key industries such as technology and energy exploration. For example, Rosneft alone has had to spend nearly $10 billion more on capital expenditure over the last year by its own disclosure, which amounts to roughly $10 of additional expenses for every barrel of oil exported, on top of difficulties continuing its Arctic oil drilling projects, which were almost solely dependent on Western tech and expertise.

Near-complete halt in foreign direct investment into Russia. Foreign direct investment (FDI) into Russia has come to a near-complete stop by several measures. There has been only one month of positive inflows in the 22 months since the invasion, compared with approximately $100 billion in FDI annually before the war.

Loss of the ruble as a freely convertible and exchangeable currency. With global multinationals fleeing in such droves, there was little to stop Putin from implementing unprecedented, strict capital controls on the ruble post-invasion, such as banning citizens from sending money to bank accounts abroad; suspending cash withdrawals from dollar banking accounts beyond $10,000; forcing exporters to exchange 80 percent of their earnings for rubles; suspending direct dollar conversions for individuals with ruble banking accounts; suspending lending in dollars; and suspending dollar sales across Russian banks. No wonder ruble trading volumes are down 90 percent, making Russian assets valued in rubles virtually worthless and unexchangeable in global markets.

Loss of access to capital markets. Western capital markets remain the deepest, most liquid, and cheapest source of capital to fund business and risk-taking. Since the start of the invasion, no Russian company has been able to issue any new stock or any new bonds in any Western financial market—meaning they can only tap the coffers of domestic funding sources such as Putin’s state-owned banks for loans at usurious rates (and still increasing, with the benchmark interest rate at 16 percent). And with multinational companies having fled, Russian business ventures have no alternative sources of funding and no global investors to tap.

Massive destruction of wealth and plummeting asset valuations. Thanks in part to the mass exodus of global multinational businesses, asset valuations have plummeted across the board in Russia, with even the total enterprise value of some state-owned enterprise down 75 percent compared with prewar levels, according to our research, on top of 50 percent haircuts in the valuation of many private sector assets, as cited in the Times.

The Liberian-flagged oil tanker Ice Energy (left) transfers crude oil from the Russian-flagged oil tanker Lana (right), off the coast of Greece, on May 29, 2022.

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky gestures with an open hand while speaking during a TV news interview. Zelensky is dressed in his typical black t-shirt and is seated at a desk in front of a bright blue wall.

A woman poses for a photo in front of a tall decorated Christmas tree in front of a war-damanged building in Melitopol in Ukraine's Zaporizhzhia region with a Russian flag flying from a tall pole overhead. — A woman poses for a photo in front of a tall decorated Christmas tree in front of a war-damanged building in Melitopol in Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region with a Russian flag flying from a tall pole overhead.

These are just some of the costs imposed on Putin by the withdrawal of 1,000-plus global businesses; it does not consider the deleterious impact on the Russian economy of economic sanctions, such as the highly effective oil price cap devised by the U.S. Treasury Department. More than two-thirds of Russia’s exports were energy, and that is now sliced in half. Russia, which never supplied any finished goods—industrial or consumer—to the global economy, is paralyzed. It is not remotely an economic superpower, with virtually all of its raw materials easily substituted from elsewhere. The war machine is driven only by the cannibalization of now state-controlled enterprises.

Based on our ample economic data, the verdict is clear: The unprecedented, historic exodus of 1,000-plus global companies has helped cripple Putin’s war machine. At such a dire moment for Ukraine, it would be a mistake to be too Pollyannaish—just as it would be a mistake to be too cynical.

Russia’s economy is paralyzed, and Putin’s war machine survives on cannibalizing state-owned firms, Yale researchers say

Business Insider

Russia’s economy is paralyzed, and Putin’s war machine survives on cannibalizing state-owned firms, Yale researchers say

Jason Ma – December 27, 2023

Russia’s economy is paralyzed, and its war machine survives by cannibalizing state-owned firms.
That’s according to Yale professors pushing back on commentary that Putin is one 2023’s big winners.
“We cannot fall into the trap of thinking that all is good for Putin,” they said.

Russia’s economy is paralyzed, and its war machine survives on cannibalizing state-owned firms, two Yale researchers said.

In an op-ed in Foreign Policy on Friday, Jeffrey Sonnenfeld and Steven Tian pushed back on recent commentary that cast Russian President Vladimir Putin as one of 2023’s big winners amid signs of economic resilience.

But Western sanctions and the mass exodus of multinational companies from Russia have inflicted huge costs on the nation’s economy, they said.

“We cannot fall into the trap of thinking that all is good for Putin, and we cannot jettison effective measures to pressure him,” Sonnenfeld and Tian wrote, adding that transferring “worthless” expropriated assets from Western firms to Putin’s cronies didn’t make Russia wealthier.

They also listed several other signs that Russia’s economy had been reeling.

Since Russia invaded Ukraine in early 2022, at least 1 million Russians have fled to other countries, including top tech talent. That’s contributed to a labor shortage that’s nearing 5 million workers and has stoked high inflation.

Meanwhile, $253 billion in private capital left Russia between February 2022 and June 2023, Sonnenfeld and Tian said, citing the Russian central bank’s data.

In addition, Russia has lost access to Western technology and expertise that its companies relied on, while foreign direct investment has nearly dried up.

Making matters worse are strict capital controls that have rendered Russian assets valued in rubles virtually worthless on global markets.

And sanctions that cut off Moscow from much of international finance have prevented Russian companies from issuing any new stock or bond in a Western market.

“Russia, which never supplied any finished goods — industrial or consumer — to the global economy, is paralyzed,” Sonnenfeld and Tian said. “It is not remotely an economic superpower, with virtually all of its raw materials easily substituted from elsewhere. The war machine is driven only by the cannibalization of now state-controlled enterprises.”

Even the Kremlin is bracing for more pain. On Monday, Russia’s central-bank governor, Elvira Nabiullina, said she’s expecting more sanctions.

While Russia has weathered the economic storms of the past two years, Nabiullina warned against thinking the country was “10 feet tall,” a translation from TASS, a state news agency, said. She added that the pressure from sanctions could intensify and the country must prepare for it.

Russian military executes Ukrainian POWs near Robotyne, investigation initiated

The New Voice of Ukraine

Russian military executes Ukrainian POWs near Robotyne, investigation initiated

The New Voice of Ukraine – December 27, 2023

Shell casings on the ground in a trench near the frontline in the east

Russian forces executed Ukrainian prisoners of war near Robotyne in Zaporizhzhya Oblast in December, leading to Ukraine’s Prosecutor General’s Office launching an investigation.

Russian armed forces took three Ukrainian defenders captive during a skirmish with the Ukrainian Defense Forces. An hour later, the captives were shot by the occupiers, and the video surfaced on the internet, Prosecutor General’s Office reported on Telegram on Dec. 27.

The execution by Russians violates Article 3 of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war.

Law enforcement has initiated a criminal case on the fact of violating laws and customs of war, combined with intentional murder.

This is not the first instance where Ukraine has reported the execution of Ukrainian military personnel taken captive by Russian forces. In October, the United Nations documented six such cases in its report.

In early December, a video circulated on social media depicting two Russian military personnel shooting two surrendered Ukrainian soldiers with their hands held behind their heads. This was later confirmed by the Armed Forces of Ukraine. Preliminary findings from investigators place the execution in the vicinity of Stepove village in Pokrovsky district, Donetsk Oblast.

In early September, Ukrainian Prosecutor General Andriy Kostin said that some 90% of Ukrainian POWs had been tortured, raped, threatened with sexual violence, or otherwise ill-treated.

Russian mass surrender in Zaporizhzhya sector after inhumane treatment and heavy losses

The New Voice of Ukraine

Russian mass surrender in Zaporizhzhya sector after inhumane treatment and heavy losses

The New Voice of Ukraine – December 27, 2023

A second group of Russian occupiers from the 71st regiment of the Russian Armed Forces surrendered on the Zaporizhzhya front, reporting mistreatment by the Russian command and significant losses, OC West Telegram channel reported on Dec. 27.

Russian military personnel spoke out about the “inhumane treatment” by the Russian command and significant losses. The prisoners claim that the command deploys groups of recently mobilized and untrained soldiers, along with those who have signed contracts, for daily assaults, according to the OC West report.

Commanders of the 71st regiment are accused of deploying groups of recently mobilized and unprepared soldiers, including those under contract, for daily storming operations. Prior to deployment, commanders allegedly mislead soldiers about their proximity to the front line, resulting in a lack of essential supplies and prompting surrenders, the OC West said.

The Russian command reportedly compelled soldiers from the 71st regiment to pre-record New Year greetings before storming operations, possibly to conceal losses from the Russian public.

President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said on Dec. 19 that the exchange of prisoners of war between Ukraine and Russia has slowed down due to “very specific reasons” on the Russian side, suggesting potential diplomatic challenges.

Mitch McConnell is out of step with the majority of Americans. He must go.

USA Today – Opinion

Mitch McConnell is out of step with the majority of Americans. He must go.

Charles Shor – December 27, 2023

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., once legislated on behalf of the interests of Americans. Today, he is nothing more than an opportunist who will sell out the American people to foreign interests and maintain his post as the leader of the Senate Republican conference at the expense of legislative victories. He must go.

Early in his career, McConnell resembled someone more aligned with today’s Republican base. Back then, McConnell supported American jobs and fought foreign imports. To name just a few examples, he took a hard line on China, pressured South Korea to open its markets, increased minimum export tonnage, promoted tourism, limited textile imports and promoted pharmaceutical exports.

Today, McConnell’s key characteristic is being on the wrong side of each and every policy issue facing the United States. Whether it is immigration where he has pushed multiple times for amnesty for illegal immigrants, the war in Ukraine − which he calls the “No. 1 priority for the United States” − or federal spending, McConnell is out of step with the majority of Americans and frankly recalcitrant toward the priorities of the Republican Party.

One explanation for McConnell’s “evolution” begins with the name Elaine Chao, his wife of 30 years, a perennial Washington establishment fixture as secretary of Labor under President George W. Bush (2001-09) and secretary of Transportation under President Donald Trump (2017-21).

McConnell should resign: US politicians are older than ever. Stop voting for them.

Elaine Chao used her leadership position to benefit herself – and McConnell

Despite being an early hardliner on China, McConnell did not balk at visiting Beijing in 1993 − just four years after the tanks rolled on Tiananmen Square. He was joined by his new wife and her father, James Chao, a friend of former Chinese Communist Party leader and President Jiang Zemin.

The Chaos own and operate Foremost Group − an ostensibly American shipping company that just so happens to ship more than 70% of its present-day freight to China and maintains ties with its communist government. Much of the funding for their fleet has been obtained through banks in China.

The Chao family also sponsored and trained Chinese citizens for the shipping industry, even while the Transportation secretary was calling for cuts to similar training in the United States.

Additionally, according to a 38-page inspector general report, she directed her Department of Transportation staff to handle personal tasks and work related to her family’s shipping company, such as arranging interviews, editing Wikipedia pages and planning trips.

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell and his wife, former Labor and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, celebrate his reelection in 2020 in Louisville, Ky.

Chao used her leadership position to benefit not just herself but also her husband. According to Politico, she assigned a special Transportation liaison to work with McConnell directly, opening the door to $78 million in grants for McConnell’s favored projects in Kentucky, conveniently timed to coincide with his 2020 reelection bid.

While it is ultimately unclear how much McConnell and his family have profited from their positions of influence, we know the two received a gift in 2008 that was reported on McConnell’s taxes as valued between $5 million and $25 million. A McConnell spokesman confirmed to The Washington Post that this was an inheritance for Chao after her mother died.

He has also received campaign contributions from Chao family members totaling more than $1 million.

Mitch McConnell puts personal profit first

China isn’t the only place we see his ideology bending in the direction of personal opportunity. In 2019, for example, Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley blamed McConnell for blocking bipartisan legislation that sought to lower prescription drug prices.

Why would the Senate Republican leader block legislation that was favored by 88% of Americans? The answer lies in his financial disclosures.

By December of the same year, $50,000 had been donated to McConnell’s campaign by political action committees and individuals tied to the pharmaceutical industry, according to American Journal News. Pfizer’s recent decision to contribute an unprecedented $1 million to expanding Kentucky’s Republican Party headquarters suggests that McConnell’s cozy relationship with the drug companies continues to this day.

What this brief rehearsal of McConnell’s shifting sensibilities and personal ambition shows us is not simply a hero who lived long enough to become the villain, but a man whose position has always depended on supporting whatever policies would benefit him and his inner circle.

McConnell would rather drag down the party than sacrifice his ability to use it as a way to increase his own power and influence.

Whenever opportunity knocks, Mitch McConnell will be the first to answer, even if it means sacrificing American interests at the altar of the almighty yen. It’s time we take away his key to the congressional kingdom and hand it to someone we can trust.

“Terrifying”: Republicans warn court that Trump’s “dangerous argument” opens door to more crimes

Salon

“Terrifying”: Republicans warn court that Trump’s “dangerous argument” opens door to more crimes

Igor Derysh – December 27, 2023

Donald Trump Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post via Getty Images

A group of former Republican federal officials on Tuesday warned a federal court to reject former President Donald Trump’s presidential immunity claim in his D.C. election subversion case.

The group in an amicus brief filed to the Court of Appeals in the District of Columbia warns that ruling that Trump is immune from prosecution would “encourage” future presidents to commit crimes to stay in power.

“Nothing in our Constitution, or any case, supports former President Trump’s dangerous argument for criminal immunity,” the brief said, according to Business Insider.

The Republican authors argued that Trump’s claim that he is immune in the case because he was president at the time is “especially weak.”

“The last thing presidential immunity should do is embolden Presidents who lose re-election to engage in criminal conduct, through official acts or otherwise, as part of efforts to prevent the vesting of executive power required by Article II in their lawfully-elected successors,” they wrote.

Allowing future presidents to commit crimes to alter election outcomes would turn the Constitution “on its head,” they added.

“These terrifying possibilities are real, not remote,” wrote the group, which included former UN Ambassador and Sen. John Danforth, former Reagan Solicitor General Charles Fried, and former CPAC Chairman and Rep. Mickey Edwards.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan rejected Trump’s immunity argument, writing that the presidency “does not confer a lifelong ‘get-out-of-jail-free’ pass.” The appeals court is set to review the matter after the Supreme Court last week rejected special counsel Jack Smith’s request to fast-track it.

Though the appeals process is likely to delay the case beyond the scheduled March trial date, legal experts widely expect Chutkan’s ruling to hold up.

“It’s kind of ridiculous,” Paul Saputo, a Texas defense lawyer, told The Daily Beast. “We’re not even going to have a 5-4 decision. I don’t think it’s going to be a close call. They realize that in order for them to really keep the country together, it’s got to be pretty unanimous.”

But Michael Waldman, the head of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University Law School, acknowledged that there is “not much precedent” on post-presidential prosecutions.

“There have been so few presidents as crooked as Trump,” Waldman told the outlet, adding that the Justice Department’s policy against indicting a sitting president relies on the assumption that “you can prosecute someone after-the-fact.”

“Even if the Supreme Court doesn’t want a president always looking over his back… if they want to try to draw a line, what they can say is, ‘This was not just some random act he did while in office,” Waldman explained. “This was his attempt to overthrow the Constitution,” he said. “This was about the presidency. You can’t use presidential immunity… to cling to the presidency.”

Former U.S Attorney Harry Litman told CNN that the D.C. case poses “the biggest threat” to Trump because even with the delays the trial is likely to occur before the election.

“There is still a lot of space, even if we lose a couple months, for that to be tried and go to the jury, conviction, one might think,” he said. “Plenty of time before the election, though; not plenty of time before he secures the nomination. But, that to me, is coming at him with the most seriousness.”

It’s a trap! Small towns across US use traffic tickets to collect big money from drivers.

USA Today – Opinion

It’s a trap! Small towns across US use traffic tickets to collect big money from drivers.

Matthew Prensky and Rob Johnson – December 26, 2023

Towns across America are once again relying on an old scheme to generate revenue: Turn their police forces into collection agencies to squeeze money out of the citizens they are sworn to protect.

From Texas to Ohio, municipalities are using law enforcement to counteract declining tax bases through the aggressive enforcement of fineable offenses such as speeding. A 2019 report estimated that nearly 600 jurisdictions nationwide generate at least 10% of their general fund revenue through fines and forfeitures.

Speed traps are not new, of course. In 1975, for example, The New York Times reported on an especially lucrative ticket-writing campaign in Fruithurst, Alabama.

Yet, the current initiatives erode community trust, harm public safety and violate Americans’ constitutional rights. And the scale, of both the number of tickets written and the amount of money collected, is astounding.

In Peninsula, Ohio, police used handheld speed cameras to issue 8,900 speeding tickets in only five months this year, generating at least $1.3 million in fines. That’s more than 16 tickets per resident in the community of 536 people.

The village, with an annual budget of about $1 million, collected $400,000 in fines. The private company that supplies the cameras, Targeting and Solutions Ltd., received more than $250,000 in fines issued to motorists.

Worse, Peninsula requires individuals to pay a $100 fee to contest a citation in municipal court. Those who can’t afford the fee are stripped of their constitutional right to due process. Even those who can afford the fee risk nearly doubling the cost of their ticket if the fine is upheld. Even if you believe you’re innocent, the rational thing to do is just to pay.

Last week, a judge ordered the village to suspend the fee.

Other municipalities have enacted their own policing-for-profit programs. In Brookside, Alabama, the town of about 1,200 residents saw its revenue increase more than 640% in only two years, according to AL.com, after police began an aggressive traffic stop and ticket-writing campaign. Fines and forfeitures made up almost half of the town’s budget.

When traffic stops aren’t ‘routine’: For Black Americans in traffic stops, ‘We carry the burden of ensuring we are not murdered’

Police wrote 5,000 tickets in town of 250 people

In Texas, Coffee City, with a population of about 250 people, hired 50 full-time and reserve police officers, who wrote more than 5,000 citations last year. The town collected more than $1 million in fines.

Courts have recognized that generating more than 10% of revenue from fines and fees raises serious constitutional concerns. Peninsula generated four times that percentage, Brookside five times, Coffee City six times.

Moreover, these programs often violate other constitutional rights like protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the prohibition against the issuance of excessive fines.

Traffic fatalities are up: The most deadly traffic policy you’ve never heard of leaves you vulnerable, too

Beyond these constitutional problems, a 2019 study performed by the Institute for Justice showed that a heavy reliance on fines or fees can reduce a community’s trust and cooperation with its police department. An unrelated 2018 study found cities that rely on fines solve violent and property crimes at significantly lower rates.

Nothing about these schemes has anything to do with helping the public. If it did, municipalities wouldn’t need to engineer bogus reasons to pull someone over or impose fees designed to dissuade individuals from appealing their tickets.

If Peninsula’s program was meant to promote public safety, as officials claim, the village would’ve done more to warn the 12,000 visitors who pass through town while visiting Cuyahoga Valley National Park. Instead, Peninsula warned its residents that the tickets would be coming, but provided no such alert to visitors.

Government shouldn’t treat citizens like a piggy bank

No government should be allowed to treat citizens like ATMs. The Constitution is meant to safeguard the American people from government abuses like this.

The Institute for Justice has sued dozens of local governments for infringing on citizens’ rights by collecting unreasonable fees through procedures that violate individuals’ rights to due process. In Peninsula, the institute warned village officials that they needed to bring their speed enforcement program into compliance with the Constitution or face a lawsuit.

These revenue-generating initiatives are a nuisance to communities across America. They abuse people’s civil liberties, destroy community trust and harm public safety. Luckily, the liberties enshrined in the Constitution can help Americans stand up to towns like Peninsula and force them to stop treating citizens like walking piggy banks.

Matthew Prensky is a writer and Rob Johnson is a senior attorney at the Institute for Justice.

Trump isn’t the real threat to democracy. Christian nationalism is

AZ Central – The Arizona Republic – Opinion

Trump isn’t the real threat to democracy. Christian nationalism is

Herb Paine – December 26, 2023

Less than a year away from what is surely the most fateful presidential election in American history, warnings about the threats to democracy associated with right-wing extremism and Trumpist authoritarianism dominate media’s attention.

Meanwhile, at the local level, a related movement, Christian nationalism, constitutes an equally serious creeping threat to democracy, pluralism and diversity.

Its driving force is the National Association of Christian Lawmakers.

NACL claims to ‘bring Godly change’

NACL’s mission is to “formulate model statutes, ordinances and resolutions based upon a biblical worldview for introduction in cities, states and the Federal government.”

NACL now has a legislative presence in more than 30 states, including Arizona, participating in the drafting of model legislation “to reestablish and protect conservative values in America.”

NACL’s initiatives to Christianize the nation and merge church and state (essentially dismissing the Constitution’s Establishment Clause) are inspired by Christian dominionism.

Its principles are “a world-changing strategy” to “bring Godly change” to America by transforming seven spheres of societal influence: religion, family education, government, media, arts and entertainment, and business.

As this year closes, the evidence grows that state legislatures and local school boards are the fronts on which the movement’s anti-constitutional and anti-democratic policies are being pursued.

How legislation played out in Arizona

In Arizona, the NACL’s objectives are reflected in a pattern of state policy initiatives that extend as far back as 2018 when Senate Bill 1289, modeled after the National Motto Display Act, established “Ditat Deus” (“God enriches”) as Arizona’s state motto.

That may sound benign, but, as a result, whenever ADOT sells an In God We Trust license plate, $17 goes to the Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-choice, anti-LGBTQ+ organization that files lawsuits to enshrine Christianity in government and jurisprudence.

In 2022, House lawmakers proposed House Bill 2507, a bill that the ACLU describes as “religious exemptions on steroids.”

It would a) “give religious organizations blanket immunity from all civil and criminal liability, as long as they claim to be exercising their faith while engaging in the unlawful conduct” and b) forbid the government from imposing fees, penalties, injunctions or damages against these entities.

This year, Rep. David Livingston, who serves as chairman of Arizona NACL, along with 34 other lawmakers, sponsored SB 1600, which would criminalize an abortion clinic, hospital or medical practitioner who fails to “take all medically appropriate and reasonable actions to preserve the life and health of the infant who is born alive,” regardless the newborn’s likelihood of survival.

They pushed book, transgender sports bans

In 2022, lawmakers passed SB 1164, last year’s variation of NACL’s model Heartbeat Bill, that bans abortions after 15 weeks of pregnancy. It makes exceptions for medical emergencies but not for rape or incest.

The constitutionality of that bill is now before the state Supreme Court. However the court decides, the movement’s efforts to intrude upon a woman’s health and family planning choices will continue.

This year’s NACL legislative agenda corresponds to Civics Alliance’s “American Birthright Movement,” which prioritizes a curriculum that exalts America’s past as a Christian nation, its exceptionalism and its achievements, without reference to the nation’s history of repression and exploitation.

When real atheists: Take on fake Christians

Accordingly, Livingston and his fellow legislators introduced measures to:

expand school vouchers for religious schools;
ban transgender girls and women from participating in girls’/women’s sports teams;
ban books in schools that discuss sexuality or race;
require schools to disclose information that could “out” LGBTQ+ students to their parents.

They have also introduced or passed legislation to undermine ethical investing strategies by corporations that address racial and gender equality and reproductive rights.

What’s next on Christian nationalist agenda

All these initiatives are a precursor of what is yet to come.

Pending actions include:

an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to recognize America’s Christian heritage;
the reinstatement of prayer in public schools;
the enshrinement of a “Christian nationalist interpretation” of American history in school curricula;
immigration restrictions; and
stronger governmental actions to restrict “immoral behavior.”

This Christian nationalism agenda is unfolding at school boards throughout the country and in the Phoenix area.

For example, the contract renewals of two teachers in the Peoria Unified School District were challenged earlier this year:

One was on the grounds that the teacher had presented her high school science students with sexually explicit material in the form of a PowerPoint (in fact, information about reproduction in a biology class).

The second had encouraged students and staff to wear transgender colors to celebrate the International Transgender Day of Visibility.

History has revealed the ability of small but tenacious and single-minded groups to overtake the majority.

We are compelled, therefore, amid a global anti-democratic trend, to be vigilant, speak out and vote!

Herb Paine is president of Paine Consulting Services, a social and political commentator, and former congressional candidate.

Arizona got its famous, yet arbitrarily numbered groundwater rule

AZ Central – The Arizona Republic

Why a 100-year supply? How Arizona got its famous, yet arbitrarily numbered groundwater rule

Ray Stern, Arizona Republic – December 26, 2023

Arizona’s 100-year water supply requirement came into sharp focus this year when Gov. Katie Hobbs announced news of a potential shortfall.

It came up again recently when state Senate President Warren Petersen publicly discussed why the requirement is 100 years and not some other number.

Petersen, R-Gilbert, said the number is arbitrary during a meeting about the state’s financial health in November. Petersen denied he’s planning, or has heard of plans, for new legislation next year to change the number.

The longtime politician hailing from a family of homebuilders said in the aftermath of Hobbs’ announcement he wants the public to know Arizona has “plenty of water” to continue building homes. He stood by the position in a Dec. 13 interview on azcentral.com’s Gaggle podcast.

“Why is it 100 years?” he said on the podcast. “Why isn’t it 105 years — why isn’t it 95 years? California’s (rule) is 25 years … You don’t go to the gas station and buy 100 years of gas.”

What is the 100-year requirement?

The Indigenous Hohokam, forefathers of the Pima, Maricopa and other Native American tribes, thrived for centuries in what are now called the Phoenix and Pinal Active Management Areas.

These parts of the state are flush with surface water in certain areas, augmented by the Central Arizona Project canal that moves water from Colorado River reservoirs to communities including Tucson.

They also contain untold acre-feet of groundwater, which experts say is still being pumped out at unsustainable rates. An acre-foot of water is roughly enough to serve two to three households for a year.

Action urged: Governor’s water council submits management proposals, already faces lawmaker opposition

The amount pumped from the Active Management Areas is regulated because of the Groundwater Management Act. The law, passed in 1980 by the Arizona Legislature and former Democratic Gov. Bruce Babbitt, is still praised as one of the most forward-thinking water laws in the country.

It requires developers of housing subdivisions in the Active Management Areas to prove a 100-year water supply actually exists on the land before they fire up the bulldozers.

One of its goals was to steer the state’s fast-growing development into the Active Management Areas that have more water than other parts of Arizona. It also helped ensure the CAP canal would receive help from federal officials, who required a check on groundwater pumping.

The requirement has two major provisions. The first is that metro Phoenix developers must either obtain an agreement to build homes from a city or another “designated assured water supply,” which includes some water companies. These water-distributing entities use surface water to replenish the groundwater they use.

Developers outside of major city areas, but still in Active Management Areas, must obtain a certificate from the state Department of Water Resources showing that a property has a 100-year water supply.

The act doesn’t affect rural Arizona or parts outside of the management areas. It also doesn’t generally affect industrial, agricultural or commercial sites that weren’t built as part of subdivided lands.

Is 100 years the right number?

Fraudulent land sales in Arizona led the state to pass a law in 1973 forcing developers to disclose if there’s an “adequate” water supply on land they sell. Arizona officials determined a few years later that “adequate” meant water “continuously available” for at least 100 years.

Critics at the time argued for 30 to 50 years, saying that would be more in line with the 30-year mortgage typically used in borrowing money to buy a home. A former land commissioner called the 100-year requirement “unrealistic, arbitrary and capricious.”

State officials ignored their concerns and stuck with 100 years. The number was soon codified in the 1980 Groundwater Management Act, which banned development in the Active Management Areas where at least a century’s worth of water could not be proven.

Pipelines? Desalination? Turf removal? Arizona commits $1B to augment, conserve water supplies

Kathy Ferris, a lawyer and one of the architects of the 1980 law, said that she and the late Jack DeBolske, former executive director of the League of Arizona Cities and Towns, pushed for the “adequate water supply” rule of “at least 100 years” to be included in their sweeping new law.

“We really didn’t discuss the number of years,” said Ferris, now a senior researcher for the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute.

Water expert Sarah Porter, executive director for the Kyl Center for Water Policy at Arizona State University’s Morrison Institute, agrees with Petersen that the number “100” isn’t validated scientifically. But she doesn’t think it should be lowered.

“In the minds of greatest water planners and industry leaders, 100 years was the right time frame,” Porter said. “New water-supply projects have very long timelines because of the vulnerability of cities and how devastating it could be for a city to have a serious water shortage.”

Considering the growth in Maricopa County over the past 40 years, “I’m very thankful it’s a 100-year timeline.”

If it were only 40 years, for example, it might be tougher to convince people that buying a home in metro Phoenix would still be a good investment decades from now, she said.

Arizona’s water supply is well-managed

Porter pointed out that in most Phoenix-area cities, the 100-year rule gets extended every 15 years.

For now, scientific modeling shows the system can go on almost indefinitely in these better-watered areas. Yet outlying parts of metro Phoenix that require a 100-year certificate for development don’t provide the same assurance.

The latest modeling of the entire Phoenix Active Management Area shows a 4% deficit overall in the 100-year requirement, about 5 million acre-feet of water. That’s why in June, Hobbs put a halt to new subdivisions that can’t prove a 100-year water supply by means other than groundwater supplies.

Stopped: Arizona will halt new home approvals in parts of metro Phoenix as water supplies tighten

In Petersen’s view, the 4% deficit means that some areas “only have a 96-year supply.”

If Arizona’s rule required only a 95-year supply, or 25-year supply like in California, “nobody would be talking about how Arizona is out of water,” Petersen said on the podcast.

Converting farmland to home developments saves water, he noted. He’s also correct that Arizona uses roughly the same amount of water now as it did in the 1950s despite a much larger population and economy.

Yet the problem is that “some areas would be hit harder than others, especially in Buckeye,” Ferris said. She added she believes Petersen is “in denial” about the water supply.

“We have a problem in some places. California has a problem in many places. There is not plenty of water for everyone to do just do as they please,” she said.

With climate change, drought and fights over dwindling levels of Colorado River water available for all of the states that use it, water researchers want to see more regulation, not less.

“In 1980, 100 years was a big lift,” Ferris said. “Now I definitely think it’s not long enough.”