Ben Shapiro Breaks Down Voting Rights Under the Constitution

Ben Shapiro released a sharp video today that cuts straight to a point I raised two months ago: What The Constitution REALLY Says About Voting Rights.

The core argument is simple and historically solid. The original Constitution does not create a broad federal right to vote. Article I, Section 2 ties House voter qualifications to whatever the states set for their own most numerous legislative body. Article I, Section 4 leaves the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections primarily to the states. Article II leaves the method of appointing presidential electors to state legislatures. The Framers built a republic with deliberate filters against pure majoritarianism. Federalist 10’s warning about faction was not decorative.

The later amendments changed the landscape only in specific, negative ways:

• 15th Amendment: no denial on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude
• 19th: no denial on account of sex
• 24th: no poll tax in federal elections
• 26th: no denial to citizens 18 and older

These are anti-discrimination rules. They do not transfer ordinary qualification authority (photo ID, registration rules, citizenship verification, ballot chain-of-custody standards) from the states to Washington. Neutral, evenly applied requirements are not discrimination against a protected class.

The DSA’s Plan to End Separation of Powers

I hear a lot about the platform of the Democratic Socialists of America. One thing that keeps coming up from the right is that they want to abolish the U.S. Senate and replace the independent presidency and Supreme Court with an executive and judiciary that are subordinate to Congress. A lot of people on the right look at that and call it communism.

The Progressive Pair That Remade Washington

 In his sharp video breakdown, Jake the Lawyer challenges a piece of conventional wisdom: the 17th Amendment, which moved the election of U.S. Senators from state legislatures to direct popular vote, wasn’t just a win for democracy. It quietly dismantled a key pillar of the Founders’ federalist system and helped pave the way for today’s expansive national government.

What makes the story particularly revealing is the timing. Just months before the 17th Amendment’s ratification in 1913, the 16th Amendment took effect, giving Congress broad power to levy a federal income tax. Two “progressive reforms” in the same year — one expanding revenue, the other reshaping representation — worked together to shift power dramatically upward from the states to Washington.

Supreme Court Upholds Birthright Citizenship: 6-3 Ruling & What It Means

On June 30, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major decision in Trump v. Barbara. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices upheld broad birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment’s Citizenship Clause and struck down President Trump’s Executive Order 14160.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the majority opinion. The order, signed on Trump’s first day of his second term, never took effect due to lower court blocks. This ruling reaffirms long-standing precedent like United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) while reigniting debates on immigration, citizenship, and executive power.

Quick Breakdown of the Ruling

• Vote: 6-3 (Roberts joined by liberals and Justice Barrett; dissents from Thomas, Gorsuch, and Alito).
• Key Holding: Children born on U.S. soil to parents unlawfully present or on temporary visas are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and qualify as citizens at birth.
• Notable Points: Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment but left room for Congress to act legislatively. Dissents argued the majority misreads history and creates incentives for illegal immigration.
• Trump’s Response: Acknowledged the loss but called on Congress to pass legislation ending the practice.

Source: StockCake

Trump 2028?

Available at Trump Store

Trump knows he can't run again even if he had the interest. The Guardian:

Donald Trump said “it’s too bad” he is not allowed to run for a third term, conceding the constitutional reality even as he expressed interest in continuing to serve.

“If you read it, it’s pretty clear,” Trump told reporters on board Air Force One from Japan to South Korea on Wednesday. “I’m not allowed to run. It’s too bad.”

The president’s comments, which continue his on-again, off-again musings about a third term, came a day after the House speaker, Mike Johnson, said it would be impossible for Trump to stay in the White House. “I don’t see a path for that,” the Republican told reporters at the US Capitol on Tuesday.

Johnson, who has built his career by drawing closer to Trump, said he discussed the issue with the president and thought he understood. “He and I have talked about the constrictions of the constitution,” he said.

The speaker described how the constitution’s 22nd amendment does not allow for a third presidential term, and changing that with a new amendment would be a cumbersome, years-long process of winning over both states and members of Congress.

Johnson dismissed worries about a potential third term as “hair on fire” by the president’s critics. “He has a good time with that, trolling the Democrats,” Johnson said.

I knew it, he's trolling the Democrats. It's a great troll!  

In all seriousness, I'd be OK with tweaking the 22nd Amendment. Get your two terms, sit out for four years and for another term or two later. Out of all of our former Presidents Obama is the youngest, it's perfect for him should he really want to run again.

Not that I want him to, just saying.

As for Trump while I wouldn't mind another term for him, rightfully we'd have to be concerned about the fact that in 2028 he would be well over 80 years old at this point. He's already surpassed the previous occupant and IMHO he definitely didn't seem up to it. He was nothing more than a figure head.

The 16th Amendment

 Every once in a while you would hear about President Donald Trump talking about eliminating the income tax. He could start with the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

What Trump has been talking about is eliminating or cutting taxes on overtime and on tips. As far as tips there has been movement in Chicago at least to eliminate tips. Tips is of course for workers such as servers or bartenders to make some extra income.

Either way, who knows if Trump is serious about eliminating the 16th Amendment. Amending the constitution seems like a long and difficult process anyway.

At least the repeal prohibition amendment (18th Amendment) wasn't exactly an unpopular deal during the Great Depression. How much support would repealing the 16th Amendment receive?

Also, I'm all for Trump and Elon Musk's D.O.G.E. having a look at what goes on with the Internal Revenue Service.

Also, it came out the President wants the U.S. Treasury to cease production of the penny. This was something that was mentioned last month. It cost more to produce a 1¢ coin and I'm for it, now does this mean that prices will be rounded to the nearest nickel. If that's the case I'm for it!

I just hope prices for goods and services doesn't increase as a result.

O'Reilly: Radicals float 14th amendment to eliminate Trump

 

[VIDEO] Trump is such a threat that radical progressives want to use 14th Amendment to keep him off the ballot in 2024. They're trying to use the justice system and had tried to impeach him even after leaving office to keep him from running again. Unprecedented.

The relevant section that is being used to attempt to keep Trump out of the White House a second time.

Section 3.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any state, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any state legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any state, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

All about that shocking "insurrection".....and could this apply to Trump when the history of this amendment is actually related to the Civil War.

Well Bill O'Reilly of No Spin News discusses. 

Timcast: Conservative Woman Argues For ENDING The 19th Amendment

 

[VIDEO] So basically voting should only be done by married men who owns property. Perhaps going backwards in time when the right to vote across America was limited. You have to be a legit stakeholder in order to decide who gets to govern America.

I'd be interested in the real justification for this argument. Not likely to happen, however, what logical reason could be had to remove anyone's right to vote.

This is the 19th Amendment which was enacted over 100 years ago.

The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Stossel: Does the constitution need to be amended?

 

[VIDEO] This video was posted on Independence Day. And sadly on Independence day we had a mass shooting. And you know there are some people who want to amend the 2nd Amendment out existence due to that deranged soul who took six lives at a suburban Chicago parade.

This is what John Stossel and others are discussing his latest vid. One thing that you will see is how unfamiliar people are with the US Constitution. It's something you can google and it's not a huge document that's very difficult to read and follow unlike perhaps some of this country's state constitution which can go thousands of pages.

Another wrinkle is what people believe should belong in the federal constitution. One commendeable thing about the writers of the Supreme Law of the Land is that we can amend it although that takes time. Sorry you gun control grabbers you may want the 2nd Amendment gone today, but it takes time.

Anyway to amend the constitution we invited unnecessary changes like the prohibition of alcohol which was later repealed by an amendment. However as many wokesters lament America as a land that allowed slavery in the Supreme Law, the mechanisms therein allowed future Americans to eventually abolish slavery.

I would encourage you call to just look up what the federal constitution is all about. Don't listen to anyone else read it for yourself....

Constitution Day

 Sadly this is not one of those holidays where we could expect a day off, yet that's not to say this day isn't an important one to mark one of America's important documents the U.S. Constitution. Sadly we mark this day for the beating it has been taking as of late during a worldwide pandemic. 

See the Constitution has been taking a beating from day one of its enactment. Today during a worldwide pandemic the issues of public health and individual freedom and the role of gov't are performing a very difficult balancing act.

We want to get out of this pandemic and it's a crime to either fail at social distancing or wearing a mask or currently to go unvaccinated. I saw a story about a hostess at a NYC restaurant assaulted by a patron over a vaccination card. Some places around the country including sports arenas such as Chicago's own United Center you can't attend games unless you have proof of vaccination.

See what I mean about this precarious balancing act. We want to prevent the spread of this virus but we're adding conditions to being able to go about our daily lives as if there is no pandemic. 

We also have a President who's willing to bend the constitution to either maintain a national eviction  moratorium and wants to mandate employers of a certain size that their employees must be vaccinated. Expect a court challenge to that also and the administration will just ignore it also.

Yes the constitution is a framework for how our gov't is supposed to operate. It provides for checks against the different branches of gov't. It also legally provides for our God-given rights and understand what I'm saying with this. These rights aren't just give to us by a document they're given to us by our creator. The right to free speech to worship as we choose to bear arms to have a trial by jury to due process are important rights we either take for granted or unfortunately people are willing to take away just because.

We're losing sight of what makes America an exceptional land and how we became this great nation. And if you see these college students, we should be ashamed that they're ignorant of the U.S. Constitution. [VIDEO]

A lot of those students just believe it's outdated because it's old. I'll bet they don't know what parts are outdated. I'm sure for some they might respond to the fact that white men wrote it. They might respond to the three-fifths compromise which really doesn't matter anymore anyway. Those students have no idea what they're willing to abolish! 

BTW, if you've never seen the constitution see it here! 

Ami Horowitz is back at Yale University

 

[VIDEO] In this most recent episode he was able to establish that our best and brightest who attend Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut thinks of the U.S. Constitution as a white supremacist document. He also notes that there was something sitting around on campus looking to register new voters on this day and had no takers, Horowitz is glad.

Though we know the voters who trash the Constitution probably are registered voters and voting accordingly.

Also a reminder this was also at Yale a few years ago almost the same mentality. [VIDEO]

The Pence issue is a distraction

 I'm sharing this analysis with you from Mark Tapscott at Instapundit, they discuss the procedure of electoral college vote challenges. Something to quote from that posting:

I suggest to folks on both sides of that issue that the more fundamental question is whether Congress has the authority to set aside a state’s Electoral College votes. In my view, there are two key aspects of the question:

First, is there sufficient evidence of fraud in states like Georgia, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and others to justify the decisions of Republican senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Josh Hawley of Missouri to register objections to the acceptance of their Electoral College votes? I haven’t had the opportunity to review all of the evidence for all of the allegations, but, as explained, for example, in this “American Thought Leaders” interview on The Epoch Times with the Data Integrity Group, the evidence of vote manipulation in multiple states is substantial and cries out for a critical investigation.

Second, Congress has an absolute right to set aside the Electoral College votes, according to President Abraham Lincoln, who told Congress on February 9, 1865, that “the two Houses of Congress, convened under the twelfth article of the Constitution, have complete power to exclude from counting all electoral votes deemed by them to be illegal, and it is not competent for the Executive to defeat or obstruct that power by a veto …”

The process seen in Wednesday’s Joint Session, interrupted as it was by the riot around and within the Capitol, was conducted as prescribed in the Constitution. Each properly framed and submitted objection to the acceptance of a state’s certified Electoral College votes gets two hours of debate in the Senate and the House, at the end of which members of both chambers vote on whether to accept or reject the objection.

Unfortunately, the other objects on the table weren't discussed thanks to the riots that took place on Capitol Hill. So this is indeed the ballgame, however, don't let anyone convince you that those challenges are a threat to democracy. We should care if anyone is essentially disenfranchised by any voter fraud, we should want honest elections. 

2020 election update and happy new year

 

[VIDEO] I couldn't leave 2020 without sharing this update with you. In the near year the US Congress will count all the electoral votes cast in December. There are some in Congress - there will be objections from the US House & Senate to the 2020 election. I say good on that, this wasn't an honest election by any means....

Either way, what's being perpetrated it seems as if this is nothing more than a hail mary. Dueling electors having Mike Pence "overturn the November presidential election" or even the possibility of a contigent election seems like a final push that may not work.

Either way I wont predict the future. For now Trump is staying quiet about the results and so is Biden. Roman Balmakov as you see above one possible outcome is that the objections are heard and debated and this could go to the S.C.O.T.U.S.

Regardless I don't think Pence as Vice President and President of the U.S. Senate can just give the election to Trump. That would be very controversial at a time when America experienced great unrest and under increased pressure due to coronavirus lockdowns. I feel as if any shenanigans give restless and destruction individuals an excuse to go crazy.

As always I hope for the best, happy new year! 

The Fair Tax fails....

 I've been talking about this in the run up to Tuesday's election. As America considers who will be the next POTUS - a still unresolved conclusion as of now although other states have been called since last nite - here in Illinois voters consider an amendment to the 1970 constitution.

Well to install to our state constitution a so-called fair tax or a graduated-income tax failed to pass. The last I checked the numbers it was winning in the city of Chicago who must love making the rich pay their fair share. So I suppose the rest of Illinois should thank their lucky stars that Chicago itself didn't determine the results.

Pritzker’s graduated income tax campaign concedes defeat after huge loss https://t.co/WUNVuEGLMV

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) November 4, 2020

To be honest I'm confused by this. The tally is clear however, how its supposed to get passed isn't:

Incomplete election results showed 55% of Illinoisans voting against the amendment, and 45% voting in favor with 97.6% of precincts reporting. State election officials said Tuesday there could be as many as 400,000 outstanding mail-in ballots.

The amendment needed a “yes” vote from a majority of all people voting in Tuesday’s election or 60% of people who specifically voted on the amendment.

This is what we'd see on our ballots yesterday is it 60% of all voters to vote on this amendment for it to pass or does it have to pass with 60% of the vote? Well it's clear a majority didn't vote in favor, and guess what now the state has to get to work on their revenues. 

This was Gov. Pritzker's issue this is what he campaigned on when he ran for Governor in 2018, he has to look at plan B. It should be no surprised tax hikes and spending cuts.

Pritzker: “There will be cuts and they will be painful” https://t.co/EPBHUlreGv

— Rich Miller (@capitolfax) November 4, 2020

 It's been a few years since I heard Republicans are going to hurt our public schools. Obviously that's one entitlement that's not going away, however, the issues of the schools goes beyond the fiscal issues.

I also want to add that I was somewhat following the race for Cook County State's Attorney. I wasn't too disappointed in the result, I had just to be a realist Kim Foxx held on against a relatively strong challenge from a former Cook County Judge Republican candidate  Pat O'Brien. There was another countywide race and that was for the clerk of the circuit court the Democrat was running away with it and Foxx as the incumbent didn't get away so easy.

Bear in mind well I mean many of you already know anyway Cook is a solidly Democrat area. Yes there are more Republican areas of the county, but it's solidly Democrat. I think that's a very hard wall to break and this area is one of those where it's just reprehensible for many voters to even consider a Republican candidate.

Then I also consider that although President Trump can't yet declare victory as he seeks re-election if you believe FOX News he grew his vote totals from 2016. He also got more minority (Black or Latino) votes in 2020 compared to any other Republican since 2008. Perhaps there's something to it, but time will tell if it remains sustainable.

What is originalism?

 Before I get to what I want to share with you we need to establish the term originalism. At a glance, it basically means interpreting the US Constitution ratified in 1789 as written. But let's go a tad deeper:

Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning. But what, exactly, is the Constitution’s “original meaning”?

Some originalists argue it’s the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution in the various state conventions, or the public that elected those ratifiers. Others say it’s the understanding of a reasonable, well-educated reader. Still other scholars claim the Constitution is written in legal language and should be interpreted with its original “legal” meaning. With this approach, for example, the term “ex post facto laws” likely refers only to retroactive criminal laws, and not to all retroactive laws.

Although critics of originalism make much of these intraoriginalist squabbles, the reality is all of the above approaches usually lead to the same answer.

And then we go to a tweet from a man who defeated a Kennedy for a US Senate seat from their home state of Massachusetts who evidently doesn't like originalism:

Originalism is racist. Originalism is sexist. Originalism is homophobic. Originalism is just a fancy word for discrimination.

— Ed Markey (@SenMarkey) October 26, 2020

Hmmm Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass), I'm just not sure where to begin to question your tweet. How does he interpret the constitution. Does he think the constitution is racist?

h/t Newsalert

A Republican & Democrat fair tax IL ad

 

[VIDEO] This is America and whether or not you disagree or agree with a subject at least we can hold our views. We don't have to go strictly along party lines. For some reason this ad bothers me.

I've mentioned this on occasion recently that Illinois voters will vote on a constitution amendment to allow the state to levy a tax on income according to thier particular income level. This "fair tax" is advertised here as an income tax hike on the rich and a huge tax cut for those who aren't wealthy.

What's amazing to me is that they got two men one Republican and one Democrat from two different Illinois cities to make this ad. I wonder if they found two actual voters or they have actors reciting lines. I can't really believe a Republican is OK with this idea of taxing the rich and believing he might get a tax cut out of it. But then who knows, I'll let you decide.

Free expression

On one of my other blogs I created a free speech or free expressions page and someone who looked it over said it needed something extra for it to gain some traction. Well as you see it's not my expertise, though I realize there are so many ways you could get some traction.

I see that free speech or expression is under attack. It's been under attack for years, however, it's really under attack currently. For expressing your opinion you could literally lose your livelihood or even reputation over your expression. Often what protects you from  any attempt to destroy your life is to express more "popular" opinions.

So hearing about the attempts to limit speech and expression on college campuses in recent years that's why I wrote the page which includes the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution and the appropriate section from the Illinois state constitution. Then again I also recognize that while we do have a universal right to free speech or expression as enshrined in our federal & state supreme legal documents there are those who still try to silence those they disagree with.

I've ran across a video years ago that showed a group of college students of various backgrounds claim that you've lost your right to free speech the moment you express hate. Really? Define hate. Is it racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. I get the idea it just won't stop there, anytime you disagree with someone who has this idea of limiting expression due to "hate" it could really become you express hate because you disagree with a particular point of view and it makes one uncomfortable.

Either way check my page out on this blog or the other page I have created. If you have some ideas to take it further leave a comment there. Otherwise I'm sure one day it will get some attention.

Also I wanted an excuse to share this video from John Stossel, one of his more recent videos. It shows what fair, right thinking Americans are up against. It doesn't matter your profession or even your political leanings, people who think of disagreement as hate will turn on you and decide you have no rights. [VIDEO]

As that video illustrates such individuals are beginning to infiltrate newsrooms. If conservatives think the media is heavily biased, if you got individuals willing to play with the livelihoods of other members of a news room we haven't seen the worst of this bias yet. Just consider a scathing resignation letter written by a now former NY Times opinion editor.

In the mood for a tax #Meme

Now seeing this on Facebook and seeing that there are those who think this meme is basically confusing local property & sales taxes with the federal income tax I get what this is saying.

When seeing these meme, I assumed it was talking about the 16th amendment to the constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Well all I have to say is, there's more research for me to do as far as taxation in this nation.

Prager U: Why the three-fifths compromise was anti-slavery

[VIDEO] A question that probably was never answered to my satisfaction. Is the three-fifths compromise in the US Constitution (Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3) referring to slaves and calling them three-fifths of a person? Or are they saying three-fifths of the population of slaves?

Former political science professor Carol Swain attempts to explain in this video from Prager U. Perhaps very close to the previous video about whether or not slavery was the cause of the Civil War. In the case of the video above, it was shown that there was an eventual path to elimination slavery in America.

Think about it, slaves didn't have many rights - especially voting rights - so why should census takers count them all and allow the south to get the representation to maintain slavery. If the northern states wanted to eliminate slavery and the south had little issue continuing it or even expanding it then we see how this compromise insured that this inhuman system wouldn't last beyond the unfortunate Civil War of the 1860s.

The Hill: Is Supreme Court's chief justice ready to take down ObamaCare?

This article caught my eye because a few years ago when the SCOTUS was considering the constitutionality of Obamacare the ruling was shocking to a certain segment of the electorate. Conservatives wanted to see it thrown out and under the bus instead it got a new life. Now that it's firmly in place what would SCOTUS do this time? Would it be any different?