Category: local leaders

Categories
First Amendment rights insider corruption local leaders

Vindictiveness vs. the First Amendment

Institute for Justice, IJ, free speech, 1st Amendment

Finally, the city council of Castle Hills, Texas, is doing the right thing by Sylvia Gonzalez, accepting a settlement to resolve years of litigation against the city for violating her First Amendment rights.

In 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in her favor, agreeing that courts may properly consider evidence that an arrest is retaliatory.

According to Gonzalez’s lawsuit, in 2019 city leaders had lashed out against the councilwoman for her support of a nonbinding petition to remove a city manager. The city’s weapon? A rarely used law that it wielded against her for “briefly and inadvertently having the petition among her papers” during a heated council meeting; she allegedly tried to “steal” her own petition.

Gonzalez was arrested and spent a day in jail — the real reason, according to her lawsuit, being her criticism of local leaders.

The settlement means that statewide training on “First Amendment retaliation” (presumably, how to avoid engaging in it) will be offered throughout Texas and, for Castle Hill officials, will be mandatory.

The city must also pay $500,000 in damages to Gonzalez.

Anya Bidwell, an attorney for the Institute of Justice, which represented Gonzalez in the suit, observes that the First Amendment “doesn’t come with handcuffs. This outcome sends a message to officials everywhere: if you retaliate against critics, you can be held to account.”

Let’s hope that not a whole lot of training is needed to safeguard local freedom of speech. The issue is not that complicated.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment local leaders regulation

Free Troy Lake

US Capitol, pollution, exhaust, regulations, pardon

Colorado mechanic Troy Lake, former and (we hope) future operator of Elite Diesel, was incarcerated by the Biden administration.

The 65-​year-​old fixed diesel vehicles. Unfortunately for him, he did so by removing EPA-​mandated emissions systems that supposedly help keep the air clean. By forcing vehicles to recirculate exhaust, the systems also make it harder for them to function properly.

“I was just trying to help people. And the word got out all over the country that I could do it right.”

One customer was hauling calves when his truck almost caught on fire because of the EPA-​mandated system. He removed the filter himself and paid Troy to fine-​tune the engine.

Troy has seen school buses unable to move for hours because of problems caused by the filter.

He wasn’t fixing these vehicles “out of malice,” he protests. “I think all of us want cleaner air. [At this cost? No.] But when we’re putting people out of business, there’s got to be a common ground.”

In December 2024, a judge sentenced Troy to 12 months in prison and fined him $52,500 for “conspiracy to violate the Clean Air Act.” It could have been worse: up to five years and $250,000.

Now Troy and his friends want President Trump — who has been working to undo some of the worst regulatory impositions of the Obama and Biden years — to pardon Troy so he can get back to his life and business. 

How about it, Mr. President?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created by Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
local leaders national politics & policies

Darkest Day Survived

Howard Lutnick, World Trade Center, Twin Towers

On September 11, 2001, the nominee for secretary of commerce, Howard Lutnick, took his son Kyle to his first day of kindergarten; which, he told the Senate, “is why I am with you today.”

The detour made him late for work at the company of which he is CEO, Cantor Fitzgerald, a leading financial service firm then located on top floors of the World Trade Center.

His brother Gary “and 657 of my other friends and colleagues at Cantor Fitzgerald” lost their lives that day.

Lutnick asked the surviving employees, about a thousand people, to help him rebuild the company and help the 658 families who had lost a loved one. Over the next five years, they all donated 25 percent of their salaries to those families, about $180 million. These acts of generosity “stitched my soul back together,” he said.

“My employees never expected to get paid back, but I had other ideas. In 2008, we took a division of our company public and each employee received double what they had given.”

Lutnick does seem like “just a good dude,” as J.D. Vance describes him.

I don’t know whether he will do a good job as Secretary of Commerce. Leading a major government agency isn’t the same as leading a major business. I guess part of the answer depends on whether we, like Lutnick, support President Trump’s trade policies.

I do suspect he’ll be a better head of that department than the last one.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment local leaders

Okay, Not Okay

Melisa Robinson, Institute for Justice

Melisa Robinson won her case.

After years in lower courts, she prevailed definitively in the Oklahoma Supreme Court. The court ruled that the town of Okay, Oklahoma, must compensate her for their taking of her property.

But the town balked — the judgment has not been obeyed. The town says that the department that dug the sewer line, the Okay Public Works Authority, has no money. And that the city is not responsible for the bill even though the Authority is run by the city.

More litigation, this time federal litigation — which Robinson is undertaking with the help of Institute for Justice — is required to force the town to comply with the result of the previous litigation.

Robinson’s problems began in 2009, when city workers dug a sewer line through her family’s mobile home community without any legal right to do so and without even notifying the property owners in advance, causing much damage in the process.

A jury award for the damage was overturned on appeal. But in 2022, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the city owed an amount that with attorney’s fees and other costs totals more than $200,000 today.

“Okay needs to pay what the Oklahoma Supreme Court says it owes me,” says Melisa Robinson. “If the city can do this to me, there’s nothing stopping any government from doing the same thing to others. I want to be paid and I want to put a stop to this before it catches on.”

It would certainly be the opposite of Okay to see this practice “catching on” beyond Okay.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo provided by Institute for Justice

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
judiciary local leaders

Arresting Speech Victory

Institute for Justice, Sylvia Gonzalez

I am happy that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the way it did, letting Sylvia Gonzalez proceed with her litigation.

But why was there even a question?

The case is Gonzalez v. Trevino. It started in 2019 when Gonzalez was elected to the council of Castle Hills, Texas. After winning, she led a petition drive to remove the city manager from office for abusing employees and neglecting his duties.

Soon the mayor and the police chief were falsely accusing her of tampering with a government record. She was arrested and jailed. But the district attorney dropped the charges after a day.

After Gonzalez resigned from the council because of “ongoing intimidation,” the Institute for Justice helped her file a federal lawsuit against the town for selective prosecution.

A lower court had gone along with the city’s request to dismiss the case. The rationale was that Gonzalez had not shown that others who trivially “mishandled a government petition” in exactly the same way Gonzalez did were not then arrested.

In reversing this decision, the Supreme Court said that “the demand for virtually identical … comparators goes too far.” Plausible evidence that Gonzalez had been singled out for retaliation, thus violating her First Amendment rights, was enough to let the case proceed.

It’s an important issue for all of us, not only for Sylvia Gonzalez. As IJ stresses, this kind of retaliation “against citizens engaging in protected speech or activity” is more common than we may suspect.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo provided by Institute for Justice

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
local leaders too much government

Brave New Budgets

Denver, migrants, police

“Stay here and you will suffer.” 

That’s the message Denver’s Newcomer Communications Liaison Andres Carrera delivered to migrants last month, according to the city’s NBC 9 News.

“You don’t have to walk anywhere, we can buy you a free ticket,” Carrera offered. “You can go to any city,” he said, mentioning New York and Chicago, specifically. 

“We can take you up to the Canadian border, wherever!”

Denver is now preparing to spend $90 million on migrant programs this year. 

In the last fiscal year, New York City spent $1.5 billion “for asylum seeker shelter and services,” and those expenses are going up. Chicago’s “City Council is set to vote on spending another $70 million in city funds for migrant services,” Block Club Chicago reported last week, “just five months after Mayor Brandon Johnson’s 2024 budget allocated $150 million for new arrivals this year.”

We hear about the costs of the border crisis; these whopping numbers certainly clarify that matter. 

Still, something else caught my attention. 

Denver is making a 2.5 percent cut to most city agencies, while reducing the police department budget 1.9 percent, an $8.4 million dollar decrease for cops. Some charge that’s de-​funding the police.

“The City of Denver’s adjustment to the Denver Police Department’s budget was carefully crafted with safety leaders and Mayor [Mike] Johnston,” a spokesperson explained, “to ensure there would be no impact to the department’s public services,” 

Crafted with care. And having precisely zero impact.

Imagine had you or I suggested to politicians and government officials that we slice millions of dollars from their budgets. We’d be accused of gutting education and undermining public safety … if not starving the children.

Who knew it could be so easy and painless for them?

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
general freedom local leaders Tenth Amendment federalism

Utah and the Tenth

Utah and The Feds

The trouble with the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to the Constitution — the last two items in the Bill of Rights — has not been lack of clarity. The Tenth, at least, is extremely clear: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The problem has been one of enforcement. How do the States prevent the federal government from overreach? Especially when the federal government acts as if no objection to a federal law could be brooked? Especially when the Supreme Court is, ahem, wrong, or hasn’t yet been approached with a challenge.

Utah has rediscovered an old technique. And revived it. Governor Spencer Cox signed into law the “Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act”: “The Legislature may, by concurrent resolution, prohibit a government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty.”

Ultra clear. And by old precedent — the non-​enforcement of The Fugitive Slave Act by some northern states — it provides teeth to the Tenth. If the federal government were to enact (just stretch your mind a bit!) something obviously unconstitutional, like, say, a gun confiscation, the state legislature would simply vote to prohibit any state employee, or subsidiary of the state (county, municipality) from working with federal agents. Federal government agencies don’t have enough manpower to enforce all the rules. The feds rely on the states.

CNN quotes a Democrat representative running against Governor Cox suggesting that the use of this technique would be overruled by the Supreme Court using “the Supremacy Clause.”

No. The Supremacy Clause only applies to the federal government regarding specified (“enumerated”) powers. 

Regarding matters not explicitly stated in the Constitution, it is the States that are supreme.

Or the People.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders nannyism regulation

Discrimination, California-​Style

California, racism, discrimination, government, corruption

How far will a California lawmaker go to try reverse a validly enacted and also very good citizen initiative?

In 1996, California voters passed Proposition 209, the California Civil Rights Initiative, which prohibits the state government from imposing race-​based, ethnicity-​based, or sex-​based preferences.

Prop 209 added a section to the California Constitution stating that the government “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

In 2020, friends of racial discrimination tried to revive racial preferences through a referendum. But voters shot it down, even though proponents outspent opponents 14 to one.

Now California Assemblyman Corey Jackson wants to revive racial preferences another way. His bill, ACA7, would not touch the language of Proposition 209. But it would empower the governor to make exceptions. What exceptions? Any he wishes, as long as he spews the right rationalizations when he does so.

Law professor Gail Heriot, who has launched a change​.org petition to oppose the measure, says that “ACA7’s proponents are hoping that voters will be fooled into thinking that it is just a small exception. In fact, it gives the governor enormous power to nullify Proposition 209.”

ACA7 has passed the House and now goes to the state senate, awaiting the magic of legislative action. Heriot says Californians should let their senators know where they stand on the bill. I don’t disagree.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
initiative, referendum, and recall local leaders

Democratic Notion for Gotion

Ji Jinping, battery plant, protest, Michigan

One problem with American politics? Far too many decisions get made by the federal government. 

Not only is the Washington Leviathan removed geographically from most citizens, it’s also completely devoid of the direct democratic checks available to voters in most American cities and roughly half of U.S. states: initiative, referendum, and recall. 

At the state and local level, we can often respond directly to unpopular government actions with a ballot measure or a recall campaign. And these local efforts can at times impact our national government —  even international policies. 

That’s what happened last Tuesday in Green Township in Mecosta County, Michigan, when voters recalled their entire township board — sending all five remaining board members packing after a sixth member had already resigned.

Back in April, spurred on by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s cheerleading, Michigan lawmakers approved $175 million in “taxpayer incentives” [read: subsidies] to help Gotion Inc. “build a $2.4 billion electric vehicle battery plant.”

Public uproar was not merely over the subsidy but also because the company’s parent company, Gotion High Tech, is based in China.

“We don’t want it here. It’s dangerous. We’re zoned agricultural, and they’re trying to re-​zone our property,” said resident Lori Brock. “There’s nothing that’s been truthful about this.”

When it became clear that, in addition to state legislators not listening, local officials showed more interest in making a deal than being transparent with citizens, Brock filed a petition to recall the board.

And the rest is hist … well, not so fast. Township officials continue to say the deal is done. To which Brock pledges, “We’re moving forward with lawsuits against Gotion.” 

Because voters were able to express themselves, there is hope.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

PDF for printing

Illustration created with DALL-​E2 and PicFinder

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
First Amendment rights general freedom local leaders

De- and Re-certified

doctor, medicine, association, group think, censorship

“Around the country, a slew of doctors had board certifications removed and licensure threatened for sharing their COVID-​related opinions,” explains The Epoch Times, in an article devoted to one of those persecuted, Dr. John Littell of Florida.

Early in the pandemic, “Dr. Littell, a longtime family physician in Ocala and a medical school professor, began posting videos sharing his thoughts about COVID-​19 testing, treatments, and vaccines early in the pandemic,” Natasha Holt’s Epoch Times article narrates. “He was frustrated to find his content often was pulled down from his YouTube channel.” 

But the establishment’s efforts didn’t stop there. “[I]n January 2022 and again five months later, he received warning letters from the American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM), the organization that issued his certification for his medical specialty.”

His videos on YouTube and then the safe, free-​speech haven Rumble, spread “medical misinformation,” the board charged, warning that he could lose certification. But these were warnings. The board got a bit more serious and physical when they removed Littell from a public meeting, giving him the bum’s rush.

And then the board de-​certified him.

It’s a long story, but appears to have a happy ending, with Littell re-​certified and organizing a support group for medical professionals’ free speech rights, and the basic need to practice independent, patient-​centered medicine, and to disagree with the gimcrack “consensus” policies that establishment organizations impose.

While there are multiple medical certification boards in America, these are not free-​market concerns competing for customers. The government is heavily involved at every level. And the policies and “science” that Dr. Littell and others ran up against were not only political, but wrong — medically and morally. 

As we are increasingly discovering.

Which makes medical freedom more important than ever.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder​.ai

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts