Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.
Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
One of the Judiciary’s most solemn duties is to ensure that acts of Congress are applied in accordance with the Constitution in the cases that come before us. To help fulfill that duty, courts have developed certain “clear-statement”- rules. These rules assume that, absent a clear statement otherwise, Congress means for its laws to operate in congruence with the Constitution rather than test its bounds.
But no less than its rules against retroactive legislation or protecting sovereign immunity, the Constitution’s rule vesting federal legislative power in Congress is “vital to the integrity and maintenance of the system of government ordained by the Constitution.” Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U. S. 649, 692 (1892).
Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempting to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio; and uneforce-able by unconstitutional IRS "Tax Courts
Who determines "election interference" is key here...
Sorry, but wrong. Our first amendment rights (freedom of speech, expression, press, etc.) is the real key here.
Don't be led astray by talking points that try to rationalize our first amendment rights being infringed upon.
First they banned "dangerous speech." Then it was "hate speech." Then "misinformation." Now, they are just shooting for all political speech that the establishment doesn't like, by using a new weasel-word phrase "election interference."
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.
https://twitter.com/TuckerCarlson/status/1767636879677984822 (Now it makes sense why Trump is against the legislation. Not because he is bought.)
Who determines "election interference" is key here. And what sort of evidence is required? Asset seizure via guilty verdict via declaratory judgement by an Article II administrative agency without Law Making (Article I authority) nor Judicial (Article III authority) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The Founders knew that this was the major weapon of the tyrants currently masquerading as Communists in US, thus separation of powers.
Ref. SCOTUS ruling in W. Virginia v EPA (6-30-2022) which clearly stated an Article II entity may NOT usurp authority from either Article I or Article III entities, AND those powers MAY NOT be delegated to Article II entity under any circumstances. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1530_n758.pdf
Key takeaway is that the "EPA Court" that issues fines and judgements has no authority for anything because it is attempting to usurp Article III authority per application of EPA rules which are not laws. EPA cannot make nor enforce laws per separation of powers doctrine. This doctrine appears to apply automatically to ALL administrative agencies, including the IRS, making all IRS rules not specifically passed by Congressional Bill null and void, ab initio; and uneforce-able by unconstitutional IRS "Tax Courts
Sorry, but wrong. Our first amendment rights (freedom of speech, expression, press, etc.) is the real key here.
Don't be led astray by talking points that try to rationalize our first amendment rights being infringed upon.
First they banned "dangerous speech." Then it was "hate speech." Then "misinformation." Now, they are just shooting for all political speech that the establishment doesn't like, by using a new weasel-word phrase "election interference."
Good point. First Amendment is more fundamental and upstream of “what is interference?”.
Nail well and truly driven down.
It is a stealth attack upon the First amendment, and you have just shown the progression of tyranny via changing the language.
That's the point he is making
No it is not. He got pulled into the weeds by a lesser point of contention (who has authority to define "election interference" speech) rather than focus at the heart of the issue- this is a matter of freedom of speech, and the press. No govt. entity has any lawful right to infringe on the first amendment.
The point I am trying to make is: Do not fall for the bait; the distraction; the minutia of "who can define [insert first amendment violating subject here].
Focus instead on the constitutional infringement itself, at its core. The banishment of words or subjects is clearly an assault on the first amendment. It is irrelevant how, or by whom the term "election interference" is defined, because the first amendment prohibits this.