Freedom of Speech is Non-Negotiable!


The Dangers of Law War Explained

In a landmark choice, the Supreme Court handed down an unanimous ruling, with all nine justices concurring, that Colorado could not avoid President Trump from being consisted of on the state’s main ballot.

This development prevents other states, such as Maine and Illinois, from taking similar actions to omit Trump from their tallies.

Today’s consentaneous ruling is not a surprise to me. The Colorado Supreme Court’s ruling to bar Trump from the tally was so egregious I anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court would probably rule unanimously versus it.

And it did.

The court’s three consistent liberals, who have openly revealed their disapproval of Donald Trump, hesitated to support Colorado’s extreme actions.

There was some internal dissent from the liberals about the role of Congress in implementing Article III of the 14th Amendment, but that’s a separate issue.

They agreed the conservative justices on the central issue. The key takeaway is that the unanimous decision emphasizes that states can not simply prohibit individuals from running for federal positions without legitimate factors.

The argument that Trump is unfit for workplace due to insurrection can not be applied in this instance, as there was no official accusation or conviction of such a crime. For that reason, the Colorado Supreme Court lacked a strong legal foundation to support their argument.

Whatever you personally think about Trump, today’s 9-0 ruling is a significant success for the guideline of law, and for the Constitution.

The only ones who aren’t delighted are those who experience Trump Derangement Syndrome.

Once again, whatever you think about him personally, it’s clear that Trump is being prosecuted for political crimes, not real criminal activities. Trump is certainly no angel. Anyone who performs service in the aggressive environment of high-end New York realty is most likely not an angel. Not too many billionaires are angels. However it does not mean he’s a criminal.

Trump’s political adversaries are identified to prevent him from being on the tally in 2024, regardless of the barriers they might deal with.

Popular constitutional legal representative Alan Dershowitz, known for his liberal views, has penned a book entitled “Get Trump,” expressing his strong opposition to the president. Despite being a Democratic voter who has two times cast his tally versus Trump, Dershowitz eagerly anticipates the opportunity to do so again in the future.

But Dershowitz is an old-style liberal who believes in the Constitution. And as Dershowitz sees it, Trump’s political enemies are destroying the Constitution for political purposes. It’s everything about beating Trump, the Constitution be damned.

Incidentally, Dershowitz also opposes Republican efforts to impeach Joe Biden for supposed corruption. Even if he’s guilty of corruption charges, Dershowitz argues that he would have devoted them while he was vice president, not president.

As president, he for that reason can’t be impeached for offenses he didn’t commit as president. The point is, Dershowitz bases his legal opinions on his analysis of the Constitution, not on his individual politics. And he’s frightened that the law is being subverted for political functions.

“Lawfare” is a principle that is not well understood by a great deal of people. This absence of comprehension poses a significant risk to the structure of the legal system on which our society is constructed. For those who are worried about the conservation of our constitutional government, there are a couple of concerns more crucial than this one.

The concept may be discovered as overstated to some, however it’s not. The term “Lawfare” is a combination of “law” and “warfare,” which might appear incongruous in the beginning. After all, law has traditionally been viewed as a method of avoiding disputes and dealing with disputes through peaceful methods.

Warfare represents extreme violence where contending powers take on with their survival on the line. Regardless of being seemingly inconsistent, law and warfare exist together in the concept of “lawfare,” suggesting a novel and possibly destructive advancement.

Lawfare describes utilizing legal methods to weaken opponents who are political or ideological foes. While warfare usually includes physical harm and damage inflicted through techniques like battle and attack, the same level of harm can be achieved through legal methods.

Causing damage through non-violent ways can be just as efficient as physical attacks. By targeting credibilities, financial resources, and legal standing, one can create lasting damage and limitation to their opponents, similar in impact to the use of rockets or bombs. This is the underlying idea.

Supporters of lawfare argue that the practice of using legal strategies to combat adversaries is not a recent development. Litigation has been used against rivals for several years, with courts frequently granting damages and utilizing legal procedures to implement judgments.

New understandings of the law can develop as time goes on. These interpretations argue that lawfare just represents a modern term for the longstanding practice of using legal methods to deal with disputes and pursue payment.

For ages, the legal system has depended on courts and judges to settle disputes and problem rulings, including financial penalties. Throughout this procedure, plaintiffs and accuseds have typically adhered to certain ethical and ethical guidelines.

They have honored guardrails set up to maintain the integrity of the legal system as an institution. Judges have been extensive in enforcing those rules and making sure that both sides in a disagreement regard the legal system, even as they combat out their respective claims.

There have always been some bad apples among attorneys and judges, but they are the exceptions not the guideline. In general, judges are neutral, attorneys act ethically, juries deliberate with an open mind and all celebrations deal in good faith. Outcomes can be tough, however the system is appreciated and preserved.

None of that is true with lawfare.

Show Me the Man, and I’ll Show You the Crime
The specialists of lawfare think the ends validate the means. They have an ideological program that is at best progressive and at worst neo-Marxist. They see the law as simply another tool in the toolset to advance their program and damage their opponents.

If the law is harmed and the legal system has deteriorated, that’s OK as far as lawfare professionals are concerned– as long as they achieve their objectives.

What this indicates in practice is that legal representatives and their associates scour statutes, guidelines and guidelines looking for anything that may apply actually to a target even if no substantive case of the type desired has ever been brought.

They examine old statutes that are 100 or 200 years old, which have not been utilized for a long period (described as desuetude or disuse by legal representatives), and revive them in circumstances that were not originally thought about by the lawmakers who passed the statutes.

They are also helped by thousands of pages of brand-new rules and guidelines that are still available to analysis because they have never been prosecuted. As for these, the lawfare warriors create imaginative theories to attack their targets without regard to the initial purpose or meaning of the rule.

In fact, among the preoccupations of the deep state is to keep pumping out new rules that nobody can keep up with but which lawfare types can flex and shape to their purposes.

Lavrentiy Beria, who led the Soviet secret police (NKVD) throughout Stalin’s guideline, famously stated, “Give me the man and I will find the criminal offense.” This indicates that by singling out a person, it is possible to create a criminal accusation, despite the individual’s innocence.

The psychological and monetary toll of being implicated, detained, and tried is normally devastating for people, despite the last legal choice. When corrupt prosecutors and judges are added to the mix, the downfall of the individual is inevitable.

Breaking the legal treatment breaks the protections provided by, and 14th Amendment of the Constitution, which include the assumption of innocence, the right to legal representation, and fair treatment under the law. Nevertheless, those participating in legal adjustment neglect the Constitution.

Their sole objective is to eliminate their targets, resulting in not just the political targets suffering but likewise harming the law itself. This presents a danger to everybody and the country in the long run.

The most recent news is controlled by instances of lawfare, which refers to making use of legal ways to attain political objectives. Of specific note are attempts to prevent Donald Trump from appearing on tallies in various states by invoking Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, which prohibits people who have engaged in insurrection from holding federal office. Regardless of these efforts, Trump’s candidateship stays undamaged following a current Supreme Court decision.

This provision was established following the Civil War to prevent Confederate military leaders and government officials from serving in positions of authority within the United States. Numerous exceptions were approved by Congress. Robert E. Lee was even pardoned from its enforcement after his death. The most recent court case involving this provision took place in 1919/20, exactly one hundred years ago, and the government was unsuccessful in that lawsuit.

The provision in Section 3 has been ineffective in recent times, but progressive legal groups have revived it in their efforts to challenge Trump’s actions. This is an example of the use of legal means to counter political opponents, a tactic known as lawfare.

Letitia James, the attorney general of New York, filed a civil lawsuit against Trump and his businesses, accusing him of inflating the value of specific properties on a loan application. This is another instance of legal action involving Trump’s business records.

Those well-versed in commercial real estate are aware that valuations can be unpredictable and subject to fluctuations. The Trump organization stressed the importance of this fact in writing to the lender, advising them to exercise caution and perform their own thorough assessment. The lender took this advice to heart, conducted their own due diligence, and ultimately decided to grant the loan. The loan was subsequently repaid in full, along with interest, in a timely and agreed-upon manner. There were no losses incurred, no parties harmed, and no complaints filed.

Despite Trump’s attempts to defend himself, Judge Engoron of New York found him guilty of fraudulent activities and imposed a hefty fine of $355 million, along with an additional $99 million in interest. The judge also prohibited Trump from engaging in any business activities within the state of New York for three years. Furthermore, Judge Engoron included a clause in the ruling that requires Trump to deposit the entire $454 million bond before he can appeal the decision. To ensure the judgment is enforced, the judge authorized Letitia James to seize title to several of Trump’s iconic properties.

A minor bookkeeping issue could lead to Trump’s business downfall and potentially bankrupt him, resulting from a legal dispute that typically ends in an administrative hearing and a relatively small fine. This is an example of lawfare.