Mediaboss Marketing

The Democrats have been decimated nationally and now face a national government controlled, in all three branches, by Republicans. In response, quite cynically, theres been a revival of a certain states rights mentality among liberals.

In sanctuary cities like New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Oakland, mayors have boldly stated that they will not cooperate with federal authorities seeking to deport undocumented denizens. Like Loretta Lynch, under Barack Obama, Trump has said he will cut off federal funds to cities that do not submit to federal will.

Democrat Governors like Dan Malloy and Jerry Brown are saying they will challenge federal laws, and progressive groups are looking to the states more and more to get what they want.

I may not like a large chunk of the liberal agenda but, if there are other folks who want to help shift the field of battle from the national to the local level, Ill take it.

Since FDR, progressives and liberals have pushed for an ever-greater centralization of authority; but in the age of Trump, it will be Republicans who reap what Democrats have sown, and liberals are cowering.

Libertarians are the truest champions of political decentralization, and if liberals want to serve our ends we should let them.

If the centralization of authority that liberals have pushed for over the decades is still around after theyve lost power; then, by that logic, the decentralization they cynically retreat to, when theyve lost elections, can remain when they inevitably get back into power only to find that power has been oh-so-beautifully diminished.

We can use liberal angst against big government nationalistic Republicans today, and use the fruits of liberal rage against incumbent progressives tomorrow.

We libertarians should use the changing battlefield to our advantage. We should be part of the push to shift politics to local and state levels, and then use that opportunity to seek power at lower-level offices that are more easily influenced by insurgent movements like ours.

Libertarianism has often been described as the perpetual ideology of the opposition in the United States, and federalism doubly so. As the biggest advocates for the nationalization of politics suffer the effects of their disastrous ideology, lets take the opportunity to prevent them from being able to do much damage down the line.

Jacob Linker is a Campus Coordinator with Students For Liberty and the State Chair of Young Americans for Liberty in his state.

Like Loading...

See the article here:
Progressives are Retreating to Federalism: Ironic, but an Opportunity - Being Libertarian

The Liberty Conservative

Layin The Sarwark Down: Nullification Expert Mike Maharrey Pile-Drives Libertarian Chair On States' Rights The Liberty Conservative One of the many contentious issues in the libertarian community is the notion of States' Rights. There is confusion over what the term means and how it pertains to the liberty movement as a whole. A recent exchange between Mike Maharrey, ...

See the original post here:
Layin The Sarwark Down: Nullification Expert Mike Maharrey Pile-Drives Libertarian Chair On States' Rights - The Liberty Conservative

The Libertarian Party, and fellow plaintiffs, won a victory in federal court this week in the case of Level the Playing Field v. FEC. (The full background of the case can be read from reporting here when it was first assigned its day in court and when the oral arguments occurred.)

Gary Johnson Facebook

To quote from my previous reporting summing up what was at issue in the lawsuit, which while technically against the Federal Election Commission (FEC) is ultimately targeting the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) for locking out third parties while pretending to be nonpartisan, the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs claim that:

the CPD has always been a deliberate duopoly for the two major parties and has "been violating FECA and FEC regulations limiting debate-sponsoring organizations' ability to use corporate funds to finance their activities" since its efforts are not truly "nonpartisan."

The suit accuses the FEC of "refus[ing] to enforce the law and ignored virtually all of this evidence in conclusorily dismissing the complaints even though there is plainly reason to believe that the CPD is violating FECA...."...

"The Court should...direct the FEC to do its job, which is to enforce the law and put an end to the CPD's biased, anti-democratic, and fundamentally corrupt and exclusionary polling rule."

Judge Tayna Chutkan in U.S. District Court for D.C. agreed with the L.P. and others that the FEC was derelict in its duties when it blithely refused to act on the those complaints about the CPD.

Plaintiffs allege that the Federal Election Commission ("FEC") has violated the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA").... in dismissing two administrative complaints regarding the CPD and in denying a petition to engage in rulemaking to change the FEC's regulations regarding debate staging organizations.

Judge Chutkan explains how CPD's operations should be affected by the FEC and its enforcement of election finance law:

The debate staging regulation...acts as an exemption to the general ban on corporate contributions to or expenditures on behalf of political campaigns or candidates. To prevent debate staging organizations such as the CPD from operating as conduits for corporate contributions made to benefit only one or two candidates from the Democratic and Republican partiesvia the much-watched prime-time debatesthe regulations require these organizations to (1) be nonpartisan, (2) not endorse, support, or oppose candidates or campaigns, and (3) use pre-established, objective criteria.

If a debate staging organization fails to comply with the regulations, such as failing to use objective criteria in determining which candidates participate in its debates, then the value of the debate is actually a contribution or expenditure made to the participating political campaigns in violation of the Act.

The Act provides that any person who believes a violation of the Act has occurred may file an administrative complaint with the FEC...

The L.P. and its co-plaintiffs filed such a complaint in September 2014, as well as "a Petition for Rulemaking with the FEC [that] asked the FEC...to specifically bar debate staging organizations from using a polling threshold as the sole criterion for accessing general election presidential and vice-presidential debates."

They were not satisfied with the FEC's reaction, leading to the current lawsuit "challenging the dismissal of their administrative complaint...and the agency's decision not to engage in rulemaking" about the debate threshold.

Judge Chutkan agrees that the FEC did a shoddy and careless job in actually considering and reacting to the arguments and evidence the L.P. and others presented about the potential partisanship of CPD, and thus:

the court cannot defer to the FEC's analysis and further concludes that the FEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously and contrary to law when it determined that the CPD did not endorse, support, or oppose political parties in the 2012 election....On remand, the FEC is ORDERED to articulate its analysis in determining whether the CPD endorsed, supported, or opposed political parties or candidates....

....the FEC must demonstrate how it considered the evidence, particularly, but not necessarily limited to, the newly-submitted evidence of partisanship and political donations and the expert analyses regarding fundraising and polling.

As for the argument that the CPD's 15 percent polling requirement for third party access is not properly objective and is in fact clearly designed to privilege major parties, Judge Chutkan:

GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion....as to whether the FEC's analysis of the criterion's objectivity was arbitrary and capricious and contrary to law. While the court cannot and does not mandate that the FEC reach a different conclusion on remand, the court notes that the weight of Plaintiffs' evidence is substantial, and the FEC must demonstrate that it actually considered the full scope of this evidence, including the CPD chairmen's and directors' partisan political activity and the expert reports, as well as explain how and why it rejected this evidence in deciding that the CPD's polling requirement is an objective criterion

Judge Chutkan spells out that the L.P. and its co-plaintiffs:

clearly argued, and attempts to establish with significant evidence, that in presidential elections CPD's polling threshold is being used subjectively to exclude independent and third-party candidates, which has the effect of allowing corporations to channel money to the CPD's expenditures to the C campaigns they would be prohibited from giving the campaigns directly.

It further argued and presented evidence that polling thresholds are particularly unreliable and susceptible to this type of subjective use at the presidential level, undermining the FEC's stated goal of using "objective criteria to avoid the real or apparent potential for a quid pro quo, and to ensure the integrity and fairness of the process." In its Notice, the FEC brushed these arguments aside....

Judge Chutkan is thus demanding the FEC do a better job actually grappling with those arguments. This does not mean that the CPD is on the ropes or will somehow instantly be required to either give up its firewall against third parties or stop taking in the corporate bucks.

But it does mean the FEC is going to have to come up with convincing reasons why the CPD isn't bipartisan rather than nonpartisan and why the CPD's debate inclusion criteria are fair and objective and not partisan. It will be interesting to see what they come up with.

Via the always indispensable Ballot Access News.

Read more here:
Libertarian Party Gets Victory in Suit Aimed at the Partisanship of Commission on Presidential Debates - Reason (blog)

AUGUSTA, Maine The creation story of the Libertarian Party in Maine, which has had more twists and turns than a mystery novel, is now moving into the hands of the Legislature, which will consider a bill this year that would grant permanent party status.

Lets catch up on the background. Through a nonprofit, Libertarians launched a drive in early 2015 to collect 5,000 registrants, the first step in becoming a party. They submitted 6,482 names but Secretary of State Matthew Dunlap rejected nearly 2,000 of them in December 2015 because they could not be verified as registered Maine voters, so all were unenrolled from the party by the state and became independents.

The decision was upheld in U.S. District Court in April 2015 but the Libertarians appealed and the ruling was reversed by the same court a month later, a major victory for the Libertarians. But their fight was far from over.

To achieve permanent party status, they needed at least 10,000 registered Libertarians to vote in November 2016, but they fell far short, with Dunlap spokeswoman Kristen Muszynski saying Wednesday that there are 5,616 enrolled Libertarians.

Now, the party and its attorney have brokered a deal that could lead to permanent party status. Libertarian Chairman Chris Lyons said the deal, which involves the presentation of LD 295 to the Legislature, could keep the issue from going back to court for more arguments about how Maines system for creating a new party is so hard its unconstitutional. That was the crux of the partys legal arguments the first time around.

The bill was referred to the Veterans and Legal Affairs Committee on Tuesday and hasnt been scheduled for a public hearing. There is also a second bill, which has not yet been drafted, coming from the Dunlaps office to make broader changes to the qualification process.

Were going to continue to be an official party, Lyons said on Wednesday. If either of those bills get hacked up or not accepted, basically were going right back to court.

Theres some irony here. LD 295 basically lets the Libertarians fall back on a previous law that grants party status because their 2016 presidential candidate in this case Gary Johnson received more than 5 percent of the vote in Maine. Because the Libertarians were in the qualifying process, they faced the more rigorous 10,000-vote threshold.

Why does it matter?

Having a fourth political party in Maine could mean a great deal if it gains any traction. Even one or two Libertarians in a closely divided Legislature could change the political dynamic in Maine, which raises the question: Will Republicans and Democrats vote for this?

The rest is here:
Maine Libertarians' bid for party status hits a snag - Bangor Daily News

Therewas a lot of hype and uncertainty surrounding what kind of Supreme Court nomineePresident Trump had in mind towards the end of his 2016 presidential campaign, and what his eventual choice would be. He promised someone who would be the next Antonin Scalia: An originalist, who believed in maintaining the interpretation the Founders intended when writing the Constitution.

With Neil Gorsuchs nomination to the Supreme Court on Tuesday, were getting exactly what President Trump promised and thats a good thing. Gorsuch is an originalist, and is a walking carbon copy of what wegot with Scalia.

Gorsuch isnt a libertarian, but he was undoubtedly the best choice out of Trumps list of 21 individuals that were in consideration for the position aside from maybe Mike Lee, but Leeis more valuable as a senator. With Gorsuch were getting a Supreme Court justice who will protect our constitution from being stretched even more by the left, and help to be a proponent of small government values.

Hes a strong defender of religious freedom, and a staunch supporterof states rights. While many libertarians like myself want government to be even more decentralized than the state level, having yet another proponent of decentralization is a huge win for libertarians.

Gorsuchsnomination is also awin for pro-life libertarians. While Gorsuch hasnt ruled or given an official opinion on abortion or Roe v. Wade, as a principled conservative and originalist, we can expect him to be a fierce proponent of a pro-life ethic. To Gorsuch, human life is fundamentally and inherently valuable.

Gorsuch is also against the Chevron doctrine, a precedent set in the 1980s whichallows judges to defer to federal agencies when laws from Congress are ambiguous, saying that the precedent certainly seems to have added prodigious new powers to an already titanic administrative state. This is where Gorsuch differs from Scalia, who believed in the doctrine. This may indicate that Gorsuch is even more consistent on small governmentvalues than Scalia was.

When it comes to how Gorsuch will act in the courts, we can tell that like Scalia, he is very much against judicial activism and legislating from the bench. In a 2005 article he penned for theNational Review, he noted that American liberals have become addicted to the courtroom, relying on judges and lawyers rather than elected leaders and the ballot box, as the primary means of effecting their social agenda. Libertarians should be thrilled about this. While the Obergefell v. Hodges decision did undeniably advance liberty, it waded into murky waters and set a dangerous precedent that the Supreme Court should legislate from the bench. The fact that Gorsuch believes the Court should not do so is a great sign. The Court is meant to interpret laws, not create them.

Where libertarians will start to have a few problems with Gorsuch, however, is where hispro-life stance bleeds into that of assisted suicide. He authored a book titled The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasiain which he argues that both should be illegal practices which goes directly against the general libertarian idea that you should be able to end your life at your own free will if you so desire.

On issues like the legalization of marijuana and gun rights, theres a lot of room to speculate since he hasnt given official stances on any of those issues. The most likely case when it comes to gun rights is that he will be a strong supporter of the right to bear arms. When it comes to marijuana however, one can only wonder whether he takes a more conservative stance and opposes legal marijuana, or if he channels his belief in states rights and thinks we should leave it up to the states.

While he may not have written many opinions on many of the hot-button issues, Gorsuch has a consistent track record of erring on the side of originalism and a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

Even if you dont believe that Gorsuch is the right pick, or a good pick, hes miles better than the other frontrunner at the time Thomas Hardiman. Multiple studies including one by a Washington University of St. Louis professor, and anotherled by an assistant professor at Walter F. George School of Lawhave showed that when observing many factors, most notably the possible nominees records as judges, that Hardiman was very likely to be a moderate judge, which may have spelled trouble for small government values.

While he may not be the libertarian we want, and he may not be Judge Napolitano (though Napolitano gave him a strong stamp of approval, and actually helped Trump decide during the process), he was the best on the list. Overall, libertarians have a lot to look forward to.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

This post was written by Nicholas Amato.

The views expressed here belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect our views and opinions.

Nicholas Amato is the News Editor at Being Libertarian. Hes an undergraduate student at San Jose State University, majoring in political science and minoring in journalism.

Like Loading...

See the article here:
Justice Gorsuch: The Right SCOTUS Pick - Being Libertarian