THE FEDERALIST RADIO HOUR: DECEMBER 10, 2015

Senior editors at the Federalist, David Harsanyi and Mollie Hemingway, hosted today's Federalist Radio Hour. They discussed how the Connecticut governor plans to deny citizens their constitutional rights without due process, the chaos of Trumpmania, and the new collection of essays edited by Jonathan Last, The Christmas Virtues.

TRIFECTA: CAN SHARIA & THE CONSTITUTION COEXIST?

DEMOCRATS ARE ATTACKING THE CONSTITUTION

Zo tells you why the Democrats are rewriting the Constitution. He reminds viewers that the Democrats rewrote the constitution once before, when they seceded from the Union and formed the Confederacy.

THIS DAY IN TWITCHY: MAY 6, 2015

'For real?' Monica Crowley wonders if Bill Clinton's 'losing it' after this Foundation defense

Bill Clinton: Scandals? LOL. What Scandals? http://t.co/Kqh1Z8GEgR https://t.co/Y7wIPYcMWX

— Free Beacon (@FreeBeacon) May 6, 2015

'Gee. Wonder why?' The 'favorite candidate' of millionaire voters comes as no surprise

They're just trying to protect their investment RT @DRUDGE_REPORT Hillary favorite candidate among millionaire voters http://t.co/aSkforNqHi

— Derek Hunter (@derekahunter) May 6, 2015

'A bit late for that': State Department finds Hillary's handling of email was 'not acceptable'

@thehill When did Captain Obvious take over at the State Dept?

— Weird Ralph (@weirdralph) May 6, 2015

'Painfully dumb tweet!': 'Smug' Chris Cuomo gets schooled on hate speech and the Constitution

@ChrisCuomo I did read the First Amendment, and still can't find the "hate speech" exception to free speech. Can you point it out for us?

— Ed Morrissey (@EdMorrissey) May 6, 2015

'Now shut up': Chris Cuomo fires back at critics; cites SCOTUS case law to back up his claim

Scrolling through his feed, I think CNN’s PR people might want to have a quick chat with Chris Cuomo.

— Michael C Moynihan (@mcmoynihan) May 6, 2015

Best response yet? Michelle Malkin nutshells Chris Cuomo's maddening 'hate speech' claim with ONE photo

Update: Chris Cuomo=Sideshow Bob. Constitution=rake. MT @TwitchyTeam Cuomo lashes at critics http://t.co/VYlIWVX8MO pic.twitter.com/z7ldDh2klG

— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) May 6, 2015

'It's the apocalypse': How stupid was Chris Cuomo's 'hate speech' history lesson? This stupid

Woah, @ChrisCuomo failed so hard he caused @Salon to write something responsible http://t.co/5aIKLocQqk

— Robby Soave (@robbysoave) May 6, 2015

'How embarrassing': Chris Cuomo's 'rough day' continues with a Vox spanking

No, Chris Cuomo, the Constitution doesn’t let the government ban hate speech http://t.co/arj1heg6rc pic.twitter.com/zUHyD2ufhT

— Vox (@voxdotcom) May 6, 2015

A-HA! Where did Chris Cuomo get his constitutional know-how? Iowahawk has a theory

I'm guessing Chris Cuomo studied constitutional law under professor Obama.

— David Burge (@iowahawkblog) May 6, 2015

Chris Cuomo inducted into Douche Hall of Fame; 'Clarifies' his statement 'for the last time'

.@ChrisCuomo Roll tape pic.twitter.com/tIhJEL0T5D

— Stephen Miller (@redsteeze) May 6, 2015

I do love that @ChrisCuomo's Wikipedia page has already been updated... pic.twitter.com/SUonWjvhCw

— Kimberly C (@conkc2) May 6, 2015

BOOK REVIEWS: WASHINGTON'S BIRTHDAY EDITION

George Washington's War Powers
A Review of Logan Beirne's Blood of Tyrants: George Washington & the Forging of the Presidency

In February 1825, a group of well-wishers descended upon John Adams' household to congratulate the elder statesman on his son's election to the presidency. The proud father is said to have wept, remarking, "No man who ever held the office of President would congratulate a friend on obtaining it."

The American presidency is a harrowing test of character, judgment, and skill. Our Constitution endows the chief magistracy with nearly pharaonic powers. As Commander in Chief, the president leads the armed forces of the United States. As the nation's chief executive, he enforces and executes the laws. And as custodian of the foreign relations powers of the United States, he embodies the full sovereignty of the nation on the world stage.

But as Logan Beirne's groundbreaking Blood of Tyrants - just released in paperback - shows, the office of the presidency was not conjured from abstract principles. It was forged with a specific candidate in mind: General George Washington.

The Temple of Liberty
A Review of George Kateb's Lincoln's Political Thought

For the historian, then, the trivial can be significant, and serve as context that might lead to the truth. In Lincoln's case, the truth is that the 16th president understood himself as, and was in fact, the Constitution's savior - and not its destroyer, as George Kateb would have it in his new book Lincoln's Political Thought.

Kateb falls into his error in part because his book sorely lacks an examination of historical context. In some ways this is defensible - Kateb is a political philosopher, and he didn't intend the book to be a full dress biography. But Lincoln was a man of action, not a pure philosopher. To understand his political philosophy requires examining his political actions, something which Kateb does inadequately.

This is too bad, because the book's argument is in many ways interesting. Kateb believes Lincoln followed a "political religion of human equality." This religion caused him to fight the expansion of the southern slave power in the antebellum years, refuse to accept secession in 1860 and 1861, and ultimately emancipate the slaves in 1863 and 1865. The sacred texts of Lincoln's religion were the nation's founding documents: the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Kateb believes Lincoln venerated the former over the latter, because the Declaration announced the principle that all men are created equal. The Constitution was merely the legal means of making this principle reality.

A reminder for readers: The actual name of the holiday is Washington's Birthday. Honor the memory of our first and greatest president by learning more about his famous Farewell Address, published in 1796.

KLAVAN & WHITTLE: A BILL OF RESPONSIBILITIES?

PJTV viewer Heyoka asks Andrew Klavan and Bill Whittle whether it is time to replace the Bill of Rights with a "Bill of Responsibilities." Should people be informed of the their basic responsibilities? Find out.

YESTERDAY'S HEADLINES TODAY - VOL. 488

President Palpatine: Obama Dissolves the Old Republic

Obama's Amnesty Shreds the Constitution

4 Things You Should Know About DOJ's Legal Justification For Obama's Amnesty

How a GOP president could use Obama's executive action to cut taxes

Should Republicans Embrace the Obama Non-Enforcement Doctrine?

Gruber and Obama's Big Lie

Conflict between the circuits: Gay marriage back on the Supreme Court's table

The De Blasio Democrats: Liberal, extreme, and contemptuous of public opinion

Black Skin Privilege and Ferguson

Division and Remembrance: Syria Past and Present

THREE MARTINI LUNCH: NOVEMBER 20, 2014

National Review's Jim Geraghty joins host Greg Corombos. Today's topics: Polls show Americans staunchly oppose Obama's unilateral approach to immigration, Obama's impending violation of the Constitution, and Jim Webb eyes a 2016 presidential bid.



Obama, Our Modern John C. Calhoun

One of the ideas that plunged America into the bloody Civil War was the belief that federal laws could be nullified by those who disagree with them. Senator John C. Calhoun of South Carolina was a chief proponent of the doctrine that Southern states could nullify federal laws if states disagreed with them. In announcing a lawless amnesty edict tonight, President Obama is our modern John C. Calhoun.

Elementary school civics class has taught the same thing for two hundred years: Congress makes the laws, the president enforces the laws, the judiciary interprets the laws. The reason this is so is because individual liberty thrives when government is hobbled by division of power. People live better lives when federal power is stymied.

When President Obama announces that he will be suspending laws to bless the illegal presence of millions of foreigners in the United States, he will have adopted the most basic philosophy of John C. Calhoun: some laws can be tossed aside because his ends justify the lawlessness.

Make no mistake about why Obama wants millions of foreigners to remain in the United States. He told us exactly why in 2008: he aims to "fundamentally transform" America...

Also read:

Obama mows down separation of powers and limits on executive power

NBC/WSJ poll: By large margin, Americans want GOP, not Obama, leading on policy

RED EYE - NOVEMBER 4, 2014 FULL EPISODE

Greg welcomes guests Rob Long and Donna Feldman.

'History is old': Atlantic writer blames Framers for 'constitutional malfunction'

@Lachlan This article is an intellectually dishonest piece of junk. And I'm being kind.
— Suze (@suze109) November 18, 2014

And we'd expect nothing less from the likes of The Atlantic:

Imperfect union: The Constitution didn't foresee a divided government http://t.co/4qYjxqdQ1l pic.twitter.com/wsi803XXfl
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) November 18, 2014

Wait … what?

Is this a serious assertion? Holy shit. @TheAtlantic
— Charly J. (@chuck_dizzle) November 18, 2014

Oh, it's a serious assertion, all right. More from writer Garrett Epps, who just so happens to be a constitutional law professor:

How does the coming duel between legislative and executive branch fit into the design of our Constitution?

The answer to the last question is easy. What’s coming will be painful, frustrating, and dangerous - and it will illustrate a constitutional malfunction unforeseen in 1787. The country will survive, and it's possible it can even make progress - but at tremendous cost in polarization and missed opportunity. The country is like a car driving with the handbrake on: Any movement forward will be accompanied by smoke and internal damage.

So we might profitably put a six-month moratorium on paeans to the wisdom of the Framers. The problem of divided government is a bug, not a feature, and the Constitution itself provides no guidance on how to work around it.

Yeah, those Framers really screwed the pooch on that whole Constitution thing!

This is so historically illiterate it boggles the mind http://t.co/0pJoeeosFo pic.twitter.com/JtzBDtbdUN
— Lachlan Markay (@lachlan) November 18, 2014

Yeah, that is bad. RT @lachlan: This is so historically illiterate it boggles the mind http://t.co/0zIzVI3JNu pic.twitter.com/OQmn1cah4F
— Christy Lynn (@ChristyLynnLSU) November 18, 2014

@lachlan If only the men who wrote the Constitution had written some sort of explanation of the philosophy & reasoning behind it. If only...
— DrewMTips (@DrewMTips) November 18, 2014

Gosh, what were they thinking?

@chuck_dizzle That's amazing.
— Amelia (@AmeliaHammy) November 18, 2014

@chuck_dizzle History is old
— Natevember (@NathanWurtzel) November 18, 2014

It's old, and therefore wrong.

Isn't it great how much smarter we are than they? So great. @lachlan
— Drew Belsky (@DJB627) November 18, 2014

@DJB627 What's really funny, and also awful, is that they think they're so much smarter than us. @lachlan
— Ashten Whited (@ashtenthinks) November 18, 2014

Yep - this ridiculous idea of "after, thus smarter." Maybe that's why libs abort their children. Too threatening. @ashtenthinks @Lachlan
— Drew Belsky (@DJB627) November 18, 2014

Ohhhh...

FIREWALL: YOUR SECOND AMENDMENT

TRIFECTA: FOUNDING DOCS VS. GENDER STUDIES

YESTERDAY'S HEADLINES TODAY - VOL. 295

No, ObamaCare Did Not "Save The Economy" Last Quarter

Sharyl Attkisson on the new Benghazi email revelations

Benghazi: The Truth Drips Out

Democrats and their 'dark money' hypocrisy

Dem donors like Soros, Buffet and Elon Musk get rich off of Dem policies

Senate Dems plan to gut the First Amendment in order to curtail criticism of Dems

Democrats have their doubts about this whole First Amendment thing

Establishment GOP's Common Core Rebrand Hustle

UK secession bids an opportunity for America

NARAL's False Victory: Google May Not Have Pulled a Single Pregnancy Center Ad

TRIFECTA: TIME TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION?

DEMS CONSPIRING TO RIG ELECTORAL COLLEGE

Democrats Conspiring to Rig Electoral College, Law Passed in 9 States So Far

A plan, now stealthily making its way through state legislatures with astonishing speed, would junk the Electoral College and award the presidency to the winner of the popular vote.

The plan involves an Interstate Compact where states would commit to select electors pledged to vote for the national popular vote winner regardless of how their own state voted. When enough states pass this law -- sufficient to cast the Electoral College's majority 270 votes --  it will take effect.

The Electoral College will become a vestigial anachronism.

So far, nine states and the District of Columbia -- casting 136 electoral votes -- have joined moving half way to the 270 needed to put the compact into effect. The ratifying states are: Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, Hawaii, Washington, Massachusetts, DC, Vermont, California, and Rhode Island.

Both houses in New York have passed it and its on Governor Cuomo's desk.

And, it has already passed one house in: Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon. These states, plus New York represent 107 votes. Combined with the others they are up to 242 votes. They need 270.

Who is pushing this?

All of those ratifying voted for Obama as did eight of the 10 one-house states.

The Movement is funded, in part, by the Center for Voting and Democracy, a George Soros-funded election group.

Update: NY Gov. Cuomo Signs Law to Rig Electoral College

TRIFECTA: TRAMPLING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT

TRIFECTA: OUR 1ST AMENDMENT RIGHTS IN PERIL

RED EYE - SEPTEMBER 6, 2013 FULL EPISODE

Greg welcomes guests Dana Perino, Sherrod Small and Ariel Pink. Tom Shillue fills in for TV's Andy Levy.

Grassroots Activists Take Home Major Second Amendment Victory in Colorado, Recall Two Anti-Gun Senators

Best headline from @CompleteCO "Total Recall" Good night for freedom. #COrecall pic.twitter.com/KdhCU0Kz5J
— Amy Oliver (@AmyOliverShow) September 11, 2013

Congratulations to Colorado State Senator-Elect Bernie Herpin! #copolitics #corecall #recall pic.twitter.com/kLuCyu75eU
— Ryan Call (@RyanRCall) September 11, 2013

The next Senator from Pueblo, George Rivera. #corecall #revealingrecall pic.twitter.com/GTfi9Q3WqC
— Kelly Maher (@okmaher) September 11, 2013

Founding Fathers would also be proud of citizen journalists of #revealingrecall doing the transparency job no one else would do. #CORecall
— Michelle Malkin (@michellemalkin) September 10, 2013

The people have spoken! Here endeth the lesson... @SenGiron @SenJohnMorse @MikeBloomberg #2A #COrecall
— Moira Fitzgerald (@Moira1987) September 11, 2013

VIRTUAL PREZ BILL WHITTLE - PRESS CONFERENCE

THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE

"The Separation of Church and State." Probably no phrase has had more impact on American history in the last fifty years than this one. Where did it come from? Who coined it? And, what does it mean? Distinguished law professor, John Eastman, has some surprising answers.

VIRTUAL STATE OF THE UNION, PT. 1

As always, V-POTUS Bill Whittle does an excellent job of explaining the Conservative - no, the common sense - view of an issue.  In this case, the topic involves gun rights.  

One of the cutesy "arguments" that proglodyte gun-grabbing wingnuts of the Left like to employ these days to counter the reality of our Second Amendment rights is to say: "But don't children have a right to not be murdered in their school?" Or in the case of this MSNBC discussion, "Shouldn't we also have freedom from people who have guns?"

Whittle reminds us that this argument works both ways:

In October of 2007, Amanda Collins was walking to her car after a night class at the University of Nevada at Reno. Amanda had a concealed carry permit for her 9mm Glock that she carried for self-defense. Unfortunately for Amanda, UNR is, like most college campuses, a gun-free zone. So, like the law-abiding citizen that she is, she did not have her gun with her in this gun-free zone when she was attacked by James Biela. Biela raped her on the UNR campus, less than 300 yards from the Campus Police Office. He then walked away, and a few months later, this human predator went on to murder 19-year-old Brianna Dennison.  Amanda Collins went on to say, quote, "I know, having been the first victim, that Brianna Dennison would still be alive, had I been able to defend myself that night." Unquote.

Therefore, I am directing the Virtual Attorney General to aggressively challenge any gun control laws that violate Amanda Collins's right not to be raped, and Brianna Dennison's right not to be murdered.  You are not forced to abandon your First Amendment right when you enter Chicago and New York , or your Fifth Amendment right when you walk onto a college campus.  As Virtual President I will veto on the spot, without hesitation but with a great deal of pleasure, any and all attempts to destroy any of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States of America.

Because their arguments are so simplistic and child-like, it's not hard to anticipate a proglodyte's response to the premise that if Amanda Collins had been able to carry her gun on campus that she could have defended herself and prevented the rape.  They'll say: The rapist caught her by surprise and had his gun to her head before she could reach for hers.  Therefore, what's the point of carrying the gun?  It didn't help her defend herself, did it?  That's true enough.  But that very same argument can be applied to the squishy, ineffective alternatives offered by the Left.  Having been caught by surprise, how would a call box or a whistle have done Amanda any good?  

This is Brianna Dennison.  Didn't she have a right to NOT be raped and murdered?