/wtp/ - We, the People

https://x.com/GenFlynn/status/1878993105916923906

https://x.com/LeadingReport/status/1878855677717954790

>80% of federal government managers who voted for Harris said they will resist the efforts of the Trump administration, while just 1% said they will somewhat support him, according to a Napolitan Institute/RMG Research survey.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2384

>"If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof,or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law of the United States, they shall each be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both."

>>712

>b-b-b-b-ut Anon, there's no force.

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-14/

>You can even look at this as an effort by the Mexican Government to disarm Americans.

<Second Amendment Case - Smith & Wesson Brands vs. Mexico:

Background: Mexico has filed a lawsuit against Smith & Wesson and other major U.S. gun manufacturers, alleging they should be held liable for injuries caused by illegal use of their firearms in Mexico.

<Arguments:

Mexico argues that these manufacturers knew their products would be used in criminal activities in Mexico.

Bill Olson counters that this liability would effectively nullify the Second Amendment by potentially bankrupting gun manufacturers, thereby stopping gun production.

The case hinges on the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) of 2005, which shields gun manufacturers from such lawsuits unless they had direct knowledge of the illegal use by the buyer.

<Implications:

If Mexico's lawsuit were successful, it could set a precedent that would make gun manufacturing unviable, severely impacting Second Amendment rights.

The remoteness of the manufacturer from the illegal use of the product is emphasized as a reason why such liability should not apply.

<Jurisdictional and Policy Concerns:

The discussion touches on thejurisdictional absurdity of Mexico attempting to influence U.S. policy through litigation, suggesting it's an overreach into U.S. constitutional rights. Bill Olson criticizes Mexico's own stringent gun laws, suggesting that these laws might contribute more to the violence by leaving citizens defenseless against cartels.

<Operation Fast and Furious Mention:

Bill Olson references this U.S. government operation where guns were allowed to be sold to suspected smugglers to track them to Mexican drug cartels, which backfired, leading to unintended consequences includiPost too long. Click here to view the full text.

https://www.americasfuture.net/law-matters-episode-13/

<Introduction:

The episode begins with Alicia Kutzer welcoming listeners to "America's Future Law Matters," a podcast focused on key legal issues within America's judicial system. She introduces the guest, Attorney Bill Olson, known for his extensive experience in constitutional law and appellate advocacy. The discussion is heavily critical of the school's pronoun policy, viewing it as an infringement on free speech, parental rights, and religious freedom. The tone is one of concern about the direction of educational policy and its broader implications for American society.

<Main Discussion:

Case Overview: The discussion centers on a case involving the Olentangy Local School District in Ohio, where policies mandate students to use preferred pronouns of their peers, including transgender students, under threat of punishment for non-compliance. The case was brought by Parents Defending Education on behalf of anonymous students and parents against these school policies.

<First Amendment Issues:

Bill explains how the case touches on First Amendment rights, particularly freedom of speech. He outlines two ways the First Amendment can be violated: by censoring speech or by compelling speech. The school's policy does both by prohibiting the use of biologically accurate pronouns and compelling students to use preferred pronouns.

<Supreme Court Precedent:

Reference is made to the Tinker v. Des Moines case, which established that students do not lose their First Amendment rights at school unless their speech creates a 'substantial disruption'. The school's argument that using incorrect pronouns could hurt feelings does not meet this threshold, according to Bill.

<Arguments and Implications:

Bill criticizes the policy for its complexity and impracticality, noting the variety of pronouns students might need to use, potentially leading to confusion and fear of punishment among students. He also discusses how this case reflects a broader cultural and legal battle over transgenderPost too long. Click here to view the full text.