Mediaboss Marketing

For years the Kentucky blue blood Democrat has gone against the national party on many issues. Weve always stood for the Second Amendment, equal rights, and unions!

People from Appalachia go even further on our own, our people have always stood for what we believe to be right and have often stood out alone.

Carl Perkins, the man the Portsmouth bridge was named for, represented our area for many years in Washington D.C. In 1964, Mr. Perkins was one of very few Democrats and the only Democrat from Kentucky to vote for the Civil Rights Act. That makes me very proud to know someone from my area was willing to stand for what was right even if it meant standing alone!

I believe that to be a testament as to who we are.

Some lies are being told about a good friend of mine, Kentucky State Representative Terri Branham Clark. Congresswoman Clark has represented our area in Frankfort with tenacity and spirit about the issues our area believes in. She stood by our teachers, stood by organized labor, and has always supported the Second Amendment.

Before believing the lies, check the votes its all public record. Lets not send an outsider to represent us. Lets send someone who believes how we do, because they were raised like we were. Vote Terri Branham Clark for state representative.

Jeremy Bates

Greenup

McConnell best vote for pro-lifer

Democrat Senatorial candidate Amy McGrath has clearly said she is "pro-choice" and that she supports a "woman's right to choose." She has carefully avoided a further explanation that those terms refer to abortion.

That point was well-made during the recent debate between McGrath and Senator Mitch McConnell, whom she is challenging for the U.S. Senate seat, when moderator Bill Bryant asked if she thought Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court Case in which abortion was legalized in all 50 states, could be overturned if Amy Coney Barrett is confirmed. McGrath did not answer the question directly but instead said, "Well, I'm Catholic. She went on to say that she is a mother of three and she wants to protect children. She avoided further discussion on abortion and whether or not unborn children should be protected also.

Larry Glover, a radio host of 590 WVLK, did not let her off the hook so easily when he pointedly pressed her on the life of the baby in the womb. Her answer clearly showed that she believes protecting the woman's "right to choose" is more important than protecting the life of the unborn child. She answered that "being Catholic only applies to what she can do with her own life not what others can do with theirs."

Glover pressed her on that when he asked, "So you think a woman on the way to the hospital to give birth could decide to abort it instead? She answered, "I don't think that government should be involved in a woman's right to choose."

That answer tells us that she would not even protect the smallest, most vulnerable member of the human race who has been shown on the ultrasound, trying to move away from the abortion knife. Senator Mitch McConnell will protect those babies!

Shirley Daniel

Lexington

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

View post:
In Your View: Proud to stand with Clark - The Independent

WILMINGTON, NC (WWAY) Saturday, Wilmingtons American Legion hosted the Patriots, God and Country Tour, featuring fire trucks, motorcycles, and cars decked out in patriotic colors and symbols.

Locals came out to celebrate the tour, which already has covered 5,000 miles and 28 cities in five weeks.

Dave Graybill, the tours leader, says the event celebrates veterans and first responders, giving thanks for traditional American values like freedom of religion, the second amendment, and the Constitution.

If you go on the internet, if you watch the news, very seldom are we talking about how awesome everything is,Graybill says. And so, I want to talk about how awesome everything is, not about the few things that are bad. I want to talk about all the awesome things this great country provides all of us.

Theyll visit Middlesex in Nash County later today, and then make three stops in Virginia and New Jersey before ending November 3, election day, in Washington D.C.

Read this article:
Patriots, God, and Country Tour stops in Wilmington - WWAY NewsChannel 3

Originalism has featured prominently in each of the last three Supreme Court confirmation battles those of Neil Gorsuch in 2017, Brett Kavanaugh in 2018 and now Amy Coney Barrett. Each time, misconceptions about this theory of constitutional interpretation have swirled: Isnt originalism self-defeating because the Founders werent originalist? Dont originalists ignore the amendments written after 1789? Do originalists think the Constitution applies only to horse-drawn carriages and muskets?

As a constitutional law professor, the author of A Debt Against the Living: An Introduction to Originalism, and an originalist, Id like to answer some frequently asked questions about originalism and to debunk some of the myths.

Originalism is the idea that we should interpret the Constitution with its original meaning. But what, exactly, is the Constitutions original meaning?

Some originalists argue its the meaning as understood by those who ratified the Constitution in the various state conventions, or the public that elected those ratifiers. Others say its 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.

Originalists believe the Constitution is a public instruction to legal officials, much as statutes are public instructions to citizens and to officials. As such, the Constitution should be interpreted the same way you would interpret any communication intended as a public instruction.

For example, if you found a recipe for apple pie from 1789, youd interpret it with a public meaning and not with a secret or esoteric meaning that you might use to interpret, say, a Socratic dialogue. Otherwise, the recipe would be an ineffective instruction. And youd also interpret the recipe with its original meaning, that is, the meaning its creator intended to convey.

That does not, however, mean we should follow the apple pie recipe. Maybe the recipe has some fatal defect or just doesnt meet modern tastes. In that case we can amend the recipe or perhaps abandon it. But doing so doesnt change what the recipe actually means.

The Constitution works the same way: As a public instruction, its meaning is its original public meaning. Whether and why the Constitution is legitimate and binding such that we should follow it are separate questions questions that are deeply contested even among originalists.

Some critics claim that originalism is self-defeating because the Founders themselves were not originalists. They say originalism is just an invention of the 1970s and 1980s, a reaction to judicial activism of the Warren Court (1953-1969). That is false.

All of the Founders were originalists. In 1826, James Madison wrote, In the exposition of laws, and even of Constitutions, how many important errors may be produced by mere innovations in the use of words and phrases, if not controlled by a recurrence to the original and authentic meaning attached to them! Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in 1827 that the intention of the [Constitution] must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended. Daniel Webster argued in 1840 that the Constitution must be interpreted in its common and popular sense in that sense in which the people may be supposed to have understood it when they ratified the Constitution. And as David P. Currie explained in his monumental study The Constitution in Congress, between 1789 and 1861 just about everybody in Congress was an originalist.

Despite popular belief, there is no difference between the two. Originalists interpret the Constitution with its original meaning; textualists interpret statutes with their original meanings. Same method, different texts.

Both originalists and textualists argue that the secret intent of the Founding Fathers, or the legislative intent of statutory drafters, cannot override the texts clear meaning. The Founders and drafters intent, however, is evidence of what they likely meant by what they wrote.

For that reason, originalists like to look to James Madisons notes from the Constitutional Convention. In principle, textualists can look to legislative history like committee reports for the same reason. But textualists are wary of relying on legislative history because doing so is unreliable. There can be so many varying and competing statements in a statutes legislative history that relying on legislative history is, in the words of Judge Harold Levanthal, kind of like going to a cocktail party, looking over the crowd, and picking out just your friends.

Of course. Thats why the First Amendments protection for freedom of speech applies to the internet. Its why the Fourth Amendments prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures applies to GPS devices that police officers put on cars. And, yes, its why the Second Amendment applies to more than just muskets. In other words, originalists are not bound by the original expected applications of the Constitutions text. Theyre bound by the original meaning of the text, and that meaning can and does apply to new and changing factual circumstances.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Justice Elena Kagan, appointed by President Obama in 2010, famously announced at her confirmation hearing that were all originalists now. She meant that all justices take the text of the Constitution more seriously than they used to. Only three justices, however Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh are self-avowed originalists. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts both take a more pragmatic approach, giving more weight to precedents and consequences. Justices Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor believe the Constitution can and should evolve over time.

A more recent misconception is that originalists ignore all the amendments written after 1789, the year the Constitution went into effect. This is an odd criticism because that would include the Bill of Rights, which wasnt added until 1791. Originalists are bound by changes to the Constitution that have been properly made through the amendment process.

This is also why originalism can and does justify Brown v. Board of Education, the landmark school desegregation decision. The 14th Amendments privileges or immunities clause which provides that no state shall make or enforce any law that abridges the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens was an anti-discrimination provision with respect to civil rights under state law. If education is a civil right and it is then once it is acknowledged that segregation was never about equality but rather about keeping one race of Americans subordinated to another, segregated public schools obviously violate the Constitution.

That brings us to the final misconception: Isnt originalism just a rationalization for conservative results? The short answer is no. Originalists take the bitter with the sweet. They may not like federal income taxes or the direct election of senators, but they accept the original meaning of the 16th and 17th amendments on those points. Moreover, originalists often believe whether on abortion or same-sex marriage, for example that controversial political and moral questions should be decided by the democratic, legislative process, a process that can lead to progressive, libertarian or conservative outcomes.

Originally posted here:
What is originalism? Debunking the myths - The Conversation US

October 20, 2020 - 2:29pm

Press release:

Assemblyman Steve Hawley is celebrating his endorsement and continued partnership with the National Rifle Association (NRA) as he continues his reelection campaign. Hawley, a gun owner himself and a firm believer in the Second Amendment, is proud to continue his relationship with the NRA.

I am both humbled and honored that the NRA has recognized me for endorsement, Hawley said. New York continues to push forward egregious and unnecessarily restrict gun laws, which often times do little but hinder the rights of law-abiding gun owners.

"Albany needs to understand that gun owners are not second-class citizens, and I will continue my fight to ensure the Second Amendment rights of New Yorkers are protected.

While widely recognized today as a major political force and America's foremost defender of Second Amendment rights, the NRA has, since its inception, been the premier firearms education organization in the world.

But their successes would not be possible without the tireless efforts and countless hours of service their nearly five million members have given to champion Second Amendment rights and support NRA programs.

More:
National Rifle Association endorses Hawley for reelection - The Batavian

About all that can be said about the upcoming election has already been said. All the promises, assertions, hope, disdain, lies, fact-checking done to death. Many people have already voted; lots more have made up their minds. What were at risk of missing now is the big picture.

The picture I have in mind was the brainchild of the late astronomer Carl Sagan. In 1990, he persuaded NASA to command the Voyager spacecraft launched 13 years earlier to turn around and take one last look at its origins.

The result isnt terribly arresting an inky black void with a weird multi-hued streak running through it. The streak isnt real; its refracted sunlight in the camera lens, an example of the limitations of 1977 optics. But a closer look will reveal, suspended in that sunbeam, one pixel wide a pale blue dot.

Heres some of what Sagan had to say about that picture:

That pale blue dot? Thats here. Thats home. Thats us. Every saint and sinner; every hero and villain; every king and peasant; every young couple in love; everyone youve ever known or heard of they all lived out their lives on that pale blue dot, on a mote of dust in the vast cosmic darkness.

It looks so insignificant. No surprise there. The dot is only 8,000 miles across, and the picture was taken from 4 billion miles away. Theres nothing quite like astronomy to humble you and make you feel small.

And yet that pale blue dot is really not insignificant at all. It is the only place in the universe that we know of, and likely ever will know of, where life has been able to evolve that can not only look at the night sky and wonder, but answer all the questions about our origins, history, and ultimate fate using only the light that reaches our eyes.

So this jewel that weve been given is very special indeed. And so, by the lights of our scientific achievements, are we. Unhappily, though, our worst impulses have come to the fore all too often. We poison the jewel. We pollute it. We seem bent on exhausting its natural resources as quickly as we can. We fight over every scrap of land. And we seek to dominate, if not eradicate, anyone who may be the slightest bit different in skin color, religion, worldview, philosophy, or creation story. Our predominant motives in all this have been hatred, and childishness, and greed.

These awful impulses, always in need of address, have been encouraged and intensified in the last four years by the most important, powerful, influential person on the planet. He now seeks another four years of authority, almost totally for the gratification of his own ego and the pleasure of exercising his own bullying power all at the peril of those who call the pale blue dot home.

Think about the big picture. This election isnt only a debate over whether Black lives, or blue lives, or all lives matter; it isnt only about the Second Amendment; or solely about the separation of powers, or income inequality, or the Paris accords on climate change. It surely isnt about hoaxes, conspiracy theories, fake news, or porn stars.

Its about the nearly 8 billion souls who live here, and now the big picture comes into focus about the possibility that those may be the only souls in the entire universe.

That idea is not as outlandish as it may seem. Think first about all the imperfections, anomalies, and asymmetries that had to occur to make this planet what it is, where it is. Add to those all the random minuscule-probability events like the asteroid that killed all the dinosaurs that were necessary to allow us to evolve and flourish. And finally, consider even with only an incomplete sample size of one what is very likely the extremely limited lifespan of advanced civilizations before they destroy themselves or cause their own extinction. Reflect on all that and its then conceivable that maybe, just maybe, at this brief moment in cosmic time, this pale blue dot is the only place in the universe where theres something thats aware that theres a universe at all

If thats the case, the responsibility to preserve that awareness is ours alone. The person we elect to lead us would need to shoulder much of it. And along with that responsibility, he would have power to do many things. He could lead the effort to keep the Earth habitable by combating climate change; or he could accelerate catastrophic wildfires, floods, and hurricanes by doing nothing. He could take the point in containing and eradicating the pandemic; or he could mock the efforts to do so and allow it to spread and take even more lives. He could work with other nations to keep the peace; or he could provoke global conflict, including nuclear confrontation, with the worldwide bonfire that might follow.

In short, the person we elect would have the power to end, not only life on this planet, but quite possibly all sentient life in the universe.

So whats it going to be? A continued life-sustaining Earth, and perhaps the continued self-awareness and consciousness of the entire universe or the utter self-absorption of one unhinged narcissist?

I dont believe Im overstating the stakes here. Thats the big picture. Think about that as you cast your ballot.

Gerry Bell writes an occasional column for the Banner. He lives in Shaftsbury.

Continued here:
Gerry Bell: The big picture and the pale blue dot - Bennington Banner