America's Version of Spanish Inquisition?

In the year 1603, Sir Walter Raleigh was put on trial for treason.


The indictment charged that Raleigh had conspired to kill King James I, raise a rebellion with intent to change the nation’s religion from Protestant to Catholic and subvert the government.


It further alleged that Raleigh had listened to Spanish bribe offers, and conferred and conspired with Lord Cobham to use Spanish gold, to put Lady Arabella Stuart on the English throne. Raleigh was tried by a jury of 12 knights.



His trial was conducted by a special commission, which consisted of four judges and seven laymen, with Chief Justice Popham, of King’s Bench, the English criminal court, presiding. It had been the job of the commissioners to ferret out the evidence of Sir Walter’s guilt.


Cobham was Raleigh’s sole accuser. The prosecution never produced Cobham in open court. Cobham’s testimony, instead, was produced in the form of unsigned written confessions.


Walter’s judges were plainly part of the prosecution. When Cobham was taken into custody, the commissioners had questioned Cobham to get his confession.


In 1603, what we today know as the “presumption of innocence” and the rule that the prosecution must prove its case “beyond a reasonable doubt,” had not yet become part of due process in English criminal cases. But unlike cases tried before the Spanish Inquisition, an indictment, charging a crime, began the proceedings.


Without an indictment, there could be no trial. By 1603, the requirement of a written charge, a jury trial, and protection against double jeopardy had become part of what passed for due process in English criminal trials.


Raleigh pleaded that Cobham be produced in open court, so that Raleigh could confront his accuser face-to-face and cross-examine him. His request was denied. Raleigh might open gaps in the prosecution’s evidence and thereby escape conviction.


Raleigh, because he had been charged with treason, was presumed to be guilty, just as he would have been before the Inquisition. He had no right to subpoena Cobham or any other possible defense witness to compel his witnesses to come to court.


Even worse, Raleigh, because he was a defendant, could not testify under oath on his own behalf, nor could he have the services of an attorney. He was allowed to question the only witness the prosecution produced, a sailor who testified to second and third-hand hearsay — what people in Spain had told other people who told him.



Raleigh was allowed to argue his own case to the jury. The prosecution went first, called its witness and produced written confessions and deposition. Raleigh was not required to put on his defense before he heard the prosecution’s evidence.


It was largely because of trials such as Raleigh’s that we have our Bill of Rights. In the 180-year period between Raleigh’s trial, and the adoption of our Bill of Rights, Englishmen on both sides of the ocean came to realize that “due process” (a fair trial) required certain procedural safeguards.


They include written notice of the charge, the right to counsel, the right to confront and cross-examine one’s accusers. The right to compel one’s own witness to give testimony in court, and the right to testify under oath as to one’s innocence.



In recent days, we have seen Democratic U.S. senators shamefully attempt to turn the clock back to 1603 in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearing. They would presume him guilty, and require him to prove his innocence at least beyond all doubt.


They start with the presumption that if a woman accuses him, the woman must be telling the truth and he must be lying. “Bring in the burglar; we’ll give him a fair trial — and then hang him!”


Christine Blasey Ford has accused Kavanaugh of criminal misconduct that she alleges occurred some 36 years ago. She has done so in an unsworn letter and in an unsworn op-ed. Both are hearsay.


In America, prosecutions are commenced only after sworn evidence is heard and an indictment is returned. To date, there’s no sworn complaint. Ford’s attorneys have insisted that Kavanaugh testify first, without a sworn charge specifying Kavanaugh’s alleged misconduct!


Next, they insist that he put on his sworn defense before his accuser accuses him under oath, before he can confront her face-to-face, before he can cross-examine her, and without his own attorney.


That is exactly what the Spanish Inquisition did to its victims. If Democratic senators and representatives really want a return to the practices of the Spanish Inquisition, they should have the guts to unequivocally say so. If they don’t, then even a judge is entitled to due process.


And in America today, due process and fair trial are thought to require at a minimum — by every thinking man — the rights that are guaranteed to every American by the 5th and 6th Amendments to our Constitution, together with the presumption of innocence, and the requirement that the state/accuser prove the charge beyond a reasonable doubt.

Posted: QCOline.com September 27, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Is Civility is Dead, even at Memorial Services?

What are we becoming as a nation? Is hatred an appropriate sentiment at a funeral?

Sen. John McCain has died. Aretha Franklin has died. Both have had memorial services. And at the memorial services, those who were there to eulogize the lives of McCain and Franklin felt compelled to attack President Donald Trump.

McCain I believe was properly eulogized as a man who believed in reaching across the aisle, and who believed in civility in public discourse.

When Franklin passed away, Trump was gracious and non-political: “The Queen of Soul, Aretha Franklin, is dead. She was a great woman, with a wonderful gift from God, her voice. She will be missed!”

When McCain died, the president tweeted, “My deepest sympathies and respect go out to the family of Senator John McCain. Our hearts and prayers are with you!”

The president’s gracious and non-political tweet came not withstanding his very public differences with McCain. Compare what the president said with what was said by some of the people who spoke at the two memorials.

At the Franklin memorial service, one speaker could not limit himself to eulogizing the deceased. Instead, he felt compelled to verbally assail the president: “You lugubrious leech, you dopey doppelgänger of deceit and deviance, you lethal liar, you dimwitted dictator, you foolish fascist, she ain’t work for you.”

Jesse Jackson took the opportunity to urge Democratic voter registration. “We have long lines to celebrate death, and short lines for voting. Something is missing. If you leave here today and don’t register to vote, you’re dishonoring Aretha.”

At the McCain memorial, the senator’s adult daughter also found it impossible to engage in the very self-restraint that her father had demanded of the president.

“We gather here to mourn the passing of American greatness. The real thing, not cheap rhetoric from men who will never come near the sacrifice he gave so willingly, nor the opportunistic appropriation of those who lived lives of comfort and privilege. The America of John McCain does not need to be made great again, because America was always great.”

Again, what are we becoming as a nation? Are we no longer able to draw a line as to what is appropriate behavior at a memorial service or funeral?

Is their no longer a consensus at to what constitutes appropriate etiquette at a funeral? At a memorial service? Is hatred ever an appropriate sentiment at such a service? Is a funeral the appropriate venue for a political rally?

I have always thought that a funeral or memorial service was an appropriate time to recall our best memories of the deceased. A time to recall the good things a man has done and tried to do, the times we have shared together, and perhaps, in a warm, humorous way, the foibles of the deceased.

At least that’s the way I’d like my service to be conducted ‘’ with perhaps, in the background, a little Irish music and music from the older Broadway shows and operettas that I have loved.

I would not want to go to my grave hating anybody. If I had a political “enemy,” I would hope I might have forgiven him or her before I passed.

The time for a man to fight with his “enemies” should come to an end before he breathes his last and goes to face is God. Once ended, the fight should not be resurrected by his surrogates.

I am afraid that God might discern a modicum of hypocrisy if my friends were to pray for the repose of my soul, while hating my old adversary.

Posted: QCOline.com September 9, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Majority Rule? Yes, within Limits ....

Do you believe that in America the majority should rule in all cases?

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. Do you believe she should be president?

In November of 2013, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev, and all but three Democrats voted to change the filibuster rules of the Senate. The change reduced the majority required for Senate approval of executive and judicial nominees from 60 votes to 51 votes. Fifty-two Democrats and “Independents” voted for the change. No Republicans did.

At the time, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., warned the Democrats, “You will no doubt come to regret this, and you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, warned, “I think the minority will rue the day that they broke the rules to change the rules.”

President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, both former senators, applauded Reid’s decision.

Do you believe super-majorities should ever be required, or are you adamant that the majority should always rule? If you believe the latter, then you have no appreciation of the reason why we have a Bill of Rights.

It was added to the Constitution for the express purpose of putting certain matters beyond the will and vote of the majority. It guarantees every American religious liberty. It guarantees your choice to worship as a Catholic, or as a Baptist. Or not to worship at all.

Should the majority be able to make a law that says, “Everybody shall faithfully sacrifice to the Roman deities?” Or a law that says, “No American shall practice the Catholic faith?”

If Republicans are in the majority, should they be able to pass a law by majority vote that says, “All Republicans are exempt from paying the federal income tax, and all Democrats shall pay income taxes at a 50 percent rate?”

If the Democrats become the majority, should they by majority vote be able to pass a law that says, “All persons who voted Republican in any of the last five presidential elections shall forfeit citizenship, be reduced to slavery, and work for a Democrat slave-master for seven years?” Or that all Republicans shall attend Maoist-style “re-education camps” to be taught the virtues of socialism?

If you don’t see the danger of majority rule degenerating into mob rule, you’re blind. Our Constitution, as drafted, had no Bill of Rights.

It was the Massachusetts, Virginia and New York state ratifying conventions that insisted one be added to the Constitution.

Those Americans who insisted on a Bill of Rights were hard-headed practical men. They had seen England go from Catholic to Protestant to Catholic to Protestant at the will of the monarchs’ majority in Parliament during the consecutive reigns of Henry VII, Henry VIII, Mary and Edward VI (1485-1553).

And they watched the Civil War between Charles I and Oliver Cromwell, as Puritanism became ascendant, and then the Restoration of Charles II and the High Church (1688).

Our founders didn’t want the religion of this country changing with each new president or Congress. They outlawed establishments of religion, and guaranteed the free exercise thereof. They put the question of religion above the will of the majority.

Reid’s decision to eschew the 60-vote rule and approve judges by a majority vote has come back to haunt the Democrats; first with Neil Gorsuch, and now Brett Kavanaugh.

In the movie, “A Man for All Seasons,” the importance of laws is made magnificently clear.

William Roper: “So, now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law?”

Sir Thomas More: “Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?”

Roper: “Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that.”

More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast. Man’s laws, not God’s. And if you cut them down, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake?”

Be careful what you wish for.

Posted: QCOline.com September 6, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Papal Death Penalty Update; a Respectful Dissent

Recently, Pope Francis announced, that “the death penalty is now inadmissible,” and that the church’s teaching on the death penalty, as set out in section 2267 of the church’s catechism, has been updated.


Here are the five changes, and my comments.


1. “The death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person.”


If the state, after a full and fair trial, and exhaustive appeals, can’t impose the death penalty because of “the inviolability and dignity” of the murderer’s person, how can other agents of the state be permitted to kill?

How can a police officer kill a terrorist who is threatening to execute hostages? How can an officer shoot the armed robber who first shoots at the officer? After Pearl Harbor, how could our soldiers and sailors kill Japanese soldiers and sailors?

If the death penalty is inadmissible because it is an attack on the inviolability and dignity of the person, aren’t the responses of our police officers, and our soldiers and sailors also inadmissible as attacks on the inviolability and dignity of the terrorist, the armed robber, and the Japanese soldiers and sailors?

Or are such killings permitted out of necessity?


2. “The dignity of the person is not lost even after the commission of very serious crimes.”
What exactly is “the dignity of the person?”

It cannot be the same thing as the life of the person. Does the act of murder extinguish the dignity of his victim’s person, or only terminate his victim’s life?

“Dignity” is defined as the “quality of being worthy of honor or respect.” Does the murderer deprive his victim of being worthy of honor or respect? Does the murderer forfeit his own right to be deemed worthy of honor or respect?

Or is the pope saying that human life is sacred?

Is not God alone sacred? Worthy alone of adoration? Is man sacred if there is no God? Without his connection to God? Does not the power of life and death belong to God? Doesn’t the murderer usurp God’s power over life and death?

The church has always taught that murder is mortal sin, and that the mortal sinner loses God’s friendship. If man is sacred only by virtue of his connection to God, what becomes of that dignity when man severs his relationship with God?

But, then, if you deny the existence of God, is anything sacred?


3. “A new understanding has emerged of the significance of penal sanctions imposed by the state. “

Exactly what is this new understanding?

In the years when I was on the bench, sentences were imposed to protect the pubic, punish the defendant, deter the defendant and others from committing like crimes, and rehabilitate the criminal.

Additionally, sentences were required to be “proportionate” to the severity of the offense.


4. “More effective systems of detention have been developed, which ensure the due protection of citizens.”

A murderer is serving three life sentences without the possibility of parole for murdering and dismembering three children, ages 3 to 5. The murderer then murders a prison guard, and while he is awaiting trail for that murder, he murders a second guard. If the death penalty cannot be imposed, what meaningful penalty is there which “ensures due protection of citizens” — including guards?

Whether additional life sentences are served concurrently or consecutively, isn’t every life sentence after the first meaningless? How are four more meaningless life sentence “proportionate” to the four additional murders?

Where the only meaningful and proportionate sentence is a death sentence, then the death sentence is both reasonable and necessary to protect the public.


5. “More effective systems of detention have been developed which do not definitively deprive the guilty of the possibility of redemption.”

Is he referring to the murderer asking God for forgiveness? Statistics show that in Texas a murderer spends an average of 15.6 awaiting his execution. Isn’t that sufficient time for a murderer to ask God’s forgiveness?

Or by redemption, is the pope referring to rehabilitation? Richard Speck raped, tortured and murdered eight student nurses. Is the pope saying that if the parole board decided Speck was rehabilitated after 10 years he should have been paroled?

I have never believed that the death penalty should be the sentence in all cases of murder. I believe, however, it should be the penalty where it is the only sentence that is “necessary” and “proportionate.” In that, I am entirely consistent with Section 2266 of the church’s catechism. I suggest, the church’s catechism is now inconsistent with itself.

If only the death penalty is “proportionate” to the crime, then it must be “admissible,” and the now-repealed Section 2267 had it right.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 23, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Was JFK Right About Tax Cuts? If so, so Is Trump

When candidate Donald Trump promised 4 percent growth for the U.S. economy in September of 2016, CNN scoffed, “Trump promises 4 percent growth. Economists say no way.”


In an Oct. 11, 2016 op-ed, CNN continued, “No chance, say 11 economists surveyed by CNNMoney. ‘No, pigs do not fly,’ says Robert Brusca, senior economist at FAO Economics, a research firm. ‘Donald Trump is dreaming.’


“So what’s realistic? The San Francisco Fed estimates the ‘new normal’ for annual economic growth to be 1.5 percent to 1.75 percent.”


Once elected, President Trump promised that if his tax plan were enacted, although taxes rates would be cut, there would nevertheless be an increase in federal revenues and a decrease in the deficit.


This increase in revenues would occur because the economy would grow, and businesses would see greater profits and pay more in taxes, not withstanding the lowering of the tax rates.


Now, the president’s first prediction, that the economy would take off, seems to be coming true to anyone with an open mind.


On July 27, the Department of Commerce announced that the “U.S. gross domestic product advanced by 4.1 percent in the second quarter of 2018.” CNN now dismisses that 4.1 percent growth rate, trotting out economists who now claim that it is “unsustainable.” Probably the same 11!


Trump disagrees and says the 4 percent growth rate is sustainable and promises “it will get even better.” So who are you rooting for, the President or CNN?


But assuming that the President’s first prediction that economic growth would take off if his plan were approved is coming true, what about his prediction that the deficit would be reduced?


The belief that a decrease in tax rates could result in increased federal revenues, and a decrease in the deficit, is not an original Trump idea. President John F. Kennedy made the same prediction 56 years ago.


On December 14, 1962, Kennedy in an address to the Economic Club of New York laid out his case for a cuts in individual and corporate federal income taxes rates.


Kennedy explained, “Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget — just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits.



“Surely the lesson of the last decade is that budget deficits are not caused by wild-eyed spenders, but by slow economic growth and periodic recessions, and any new recession would break all deficit records.


“I repeat: our practical choice is not between a tax-cut deficit and a budgetary surplus. It is between two kinds of deficits: a chronic deficit of inertia, as the unwanted result of inadequate revenues and a restricted economy, or a temporary deficit of transition, resulting from a tax cut designed to boost the economy, increase tax revenues, and achieve, I believe ... this can be done — a budget surplus. The first type of deficit is a sign of waste and weakness; the second reflects an investment in the future.”


Kennedy believed that high tax rates stifled the economy. He believed that lowering the tax rates would, in the short run, decrease tax revenues. But in the long run, lowering tax rates would unshackle the American economy.


He believed that if the government took less money from the private sector, the private sector would have more money to invest, expand, and hire workers. He believed in the long run that an expanding economy would produce far greater profits and far greater tax revenues sufficient to cut the deficit and even balance the budget.


To put this in concrete terms, the George W. Bush Presidential Center in 2013 projected that a 4 percent growth rate for 10 years would produce an additional 10 million jobs, $3 trillion in revenues, and a 30 percent reduction of the deficit. (And that does not take account of repatriated dollars.)


Trump is using Kennedy’s playbook. I have always believed Kennedy was right. If Kennedy was right, Trump is going to come out of this looking of a lot smarter than CNN’s gaggle of dismissive economists.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 16, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Trump a Free Trader, Not a Protectionist

Last week President Donald Trump, at a joint press conference with the European Union’s senior trade representative, Jean-Claude Juncker, announced a trade deal with the EU.


“This was a very big day for free and fair trade, Trump said. “We agreed today ... to work together toward zero tariffs, zero non-tariff barriers, and zero subsidies on non-auto industrial goods. We will also work to reduce barriers and increase trade in services, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, medical products, as well as soy beans. ... The EU will begin almost immediately to buy a lot of soy beans from our farmers .... The EU also wants to import more liquefied natural gas from the U.S. .... They will be a massive buyer.”


What the president said was confirmed by Juncker: “I had an intention to make a deal today, and we made a deal today.”


So, is the president a free-trader or a protectionist?


Trump has taken on two issues, the U.S. trade deficit, and tariffs. The issues are related, but distinct.


Here’s a simple illustration of a trade deficit:


A sells Chevy automobiles. B sells snowblowers. B buys a Chevy from A and pays $30,000. A buys a snowblower from B at a price of $500. B has a trade deficit of $29,500. A has a trade surplus of $29,500.


Kimberly Amadeo of balance.com writes, “The United States ... [total] deficit in goods and services was $566 billion in 2017. Imports were $2.895 trillion and exports were only $2.329 trillion. The U.S. trade deficit in goods [excluding services] was $810 billion. The United States exported $1.551 trillion in goods. The biggest categories were commercial aircraft, automobiles, and food. It imported $2.361 trillion. The largest categories were automobiles, petroleum, and cell phones.”


The U.S. has its largest trade deficit with China. We import about $505 billion worth of goods from China. China imports about $130 billion worth of goods from us. The U.S. deficit is therefore about $375 billion. China’s trade surplus is $375 billion.


There is some good, and some bad in that relationship. The relationship is good for American consumers. They might be able to buy an American-made TV for $500. They, however, may be able to buy a comparable Chinese-made TV for $400.


But the relationship is bad for U.S. workers. If American consumers are buying enough Chinese-made TVs, American TV manufactures may go out of business for lack of sales, or relocate their businesses to China, or Mexico where labor is cheaper and where they can build TVs for the American market to compete with Chinese imports.


Furthermore, buying all our manufactured goods from foreign countries may be very bad in the case of a national emergency.


We won WWII largely because our auto manufactures adjusted their assembly lines to build planes, ships and tanks. If there are no American manufacturers, that won’t be possible in the case of the next national emergency.


That situation is exacerbated when the foreign country imposes a tariff on U.S. goods entering their country. If a Canadian consumer can buy a gallon of U.S. milk imported into Canada at $2 per gallon, he may not be able to afford buying that same gallon of milk if a 200 percent Canadian tariff raises the price of that milk to $6 a gallon.


The U.S. dairy farmer gets no benefit from the $4 added to the price of his milk by the tariff. And worse, if the price of milk is $6 rather than $2, the U.S. dairy farmer will sell less milk to Canada. It’s the Canadian dairy farmer who benefits. He can sell his milk at $5.90 per gallon, and beat the $6 price of U.S. milk.


The agreement with the EU demonstrates that when the president says, “I want free trade, not tariffs,” he means it.


For the president, U.S. tariffs are a tool to force the reduction of foreign tariffs. He wants free trade; reciprocal trade.


If a trade war develops, China, by raising tariffs, can keep $130 billion of U.S. exports out of China. We can keep $505 billion of Chinese exports out of the U.S.


If that happens, U.S. consumers will pay a little more for U.S. goods. U.S. manufacturers will find it easier to compete.


U.S. exporters will be hurt, unless our government protects them during the war. (U.S. farmers export about $12.4 billion of soybeans to China.)


China’s economy will face depression.

Posted: QCOline.com Aug. 2, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea

Original Intent vs. Everything Else

President Donald Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court because the president believes Kavanaugh will construe our Constitution consistently with the “original intent” of the men who wrote it.


I came to Rock Island County in September 1966 to work as an assistant state’s attorney. Shortly after I came, one of my fellow assistants told me of his uncle, a former justice of the peace, who had proclaimed, “I don’t care who makes the laws, so long as I can say what they mean.”


I was appalled. His uncle was saying that under the guise of interpreting the law, he would rewrite the law to say what he wanted it to say, rather than what the people’s representatives who wrote it, meant it to say.


The United States is a democratic republic.


We are a democracy because we elect the people we want to represent us and make our laws.


We are a republic because the people we have chosen make our laws on our behalf. That is the first principle of our U.S. Constitution. Article I provides, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.”


Note, it says “all.” It does not say “some” or “most.” If all legislative power is vested in Congress, then none is vested in the president or in any judge.


Article II provides, “The executive power shall be vested in [the] president.” He takes an oath to “faithfully execute” and to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.”


Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court are judges; not members of Congress. They are not elected to make our laws. Under our Constitution, no power has been vested in judges to make or rewrite our laws.


Under Article III of the Constitution, they are vested with judicial power.


Article V provides two alternative methods to amend our Constitution. Neither the president nor any judge has any role in the amendment process.


This tripartite process — Congress making our laws, the president executing those laws, and the Supreme Court judging what our Constitution and those laws mean — is known as the “separation of powers.”


Our Constitution is a product of experience, not logic.


The experience of the American people living in the 13 English colonies was the force behind Article I. The colonists had grown used to electing their own colonial representative assemblies. Those assemblies made their laws, and taxed them.


When the English King and Parliament asserted a parliamentary right to impose taxes on the colonies in an end run around their colonial assemblies, we fought and won a Revolutionary War, largely over the principle of “no taxation without representation.”


During the constitutional cConvention, it quickly became obvious that the American people would accept no king. The men who drafted our Constitution were well aware of the kingly claims of royal prerogative.


To insure that the American president could have no basis to claim a divine right to make laws or rule by decree, the founders vested ALL legislative power in the House of Representatives elected by the people, and a Senate by state legislatures.


The executive, the president, was vested only with power to execute those laws, not make, amend or repeal them.


The notion that judges can make laws or amend the Constitution by their decrees is even more undemocratic and unconstitutional than a president ruling by decree.


The president, at least, is elected by the people through their electors. We did not boot out a king who wanted to rule by decree to replace him with nine guys in black robes who would do the same.


The canard that a judge, who construes the Constitution consistently with the intent of the men that wrote it, is somehow a far right-winger or out of the mainstream is either a lie, stupidity, or the ranting of a lunatic with a superiority complex who wants our Constitution replaced with one that embodies his more enlightened notions of what a better constitution should say.


Once Supreme Court judges abandon construction of our Constitution in accordance with the founder’s original intent, then every judge's notion of what the Constitution should mean is equally valid. There is no anchor.


Every judge's new rule of construction becomes, “I don’t care who makes the laws, so long as I can say what the laws mean.”


My liberty is secure under James Madison’s construction of our Constitution. I don’t want to risk it with the more enlightened 21st century constructions.

Posted: QCOline.com July 26, 2018

Copyright 2018, John Donald O'Shea