|
 |
 |
Can we stop the White House from steamrolling our most fundamental rights? Will we?
The Federalists won their debate with the Anti-Federalists with ratification of the Constitution, but we inherited an important legacy from the Anti-Federalists — the Bill of Rights. In arguing against ratification, George Mason, the most prominent Anti-Federalist and a Constitutional Convention delegate, complained that there were no protections for our civil liberties in the Constitution.
"There is no Declaration of Rights, and the laws of the general government being paramount to the laws and constitution of the several States, the Declarations of Rights in the separate States are no security. Nor are the people secured even in the enjoyment of the benefit of the common law," Mason wrote.
This argument also won the day and one of the first tasks of the first Congress was to add the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution.
The Bill of Rights limits government power. Our government can take away our liberties, but to do so it must surpass the high hurdles in the Bill of Rights. The 1st Amendment upholds many of our core liberties — religion, speech, press, and assembly. While half of the amendments, 4 through 8, are devoted to our protections when the government detains us or accuses us of a crime. This makes sense because that is when we are most in danger of having our liberties taken away.
This can be frustrating sometimes, when we see the "bad guys" or people we don't like enjoy protections from the Bill of Rights¹. But we do (or should) support rights for everyone due to the social contract — we all have these rights by supporting these rights for everyone else, even people we disagree with. Without a critical mass of Americans agreeing to this social contract, our civil liberties collapse, and our democracy as we know it collapses as well.
We as a nation have not been upholding this social contract well, even before Trump was elected the first time. But this past week, especially, feels like a potential turning point for our civil liberties.
Mahmoud Khalil, a leader of last year's campus protests at Columbia University, was arrested and may be deported². I did not support many of the demands and methods of those protestors. In fact, I found them downright despicable. Nonetheless, my support for the social contract demands that I support Khalil's civil liberties, which are now being violated.
Khalil was detained due to his protest activities, which are protected by the 1st Amendment.
Khalil is detained without being charged with a crime, which is a due process violation under the 5th Amendment.
Khalil has been denied access to his attorney, which is guaranteed by the 6th Amendment.
And while I would hope Khalil would similarly support my civil liberties if the situation were reversed, our support for the social contract can't be conditional on what others do, or else it quickly falls apart.
This is a time for all of us to take a stand in support of Khalil's rights, not because we necessarily support what he said, but because we support his right to say it.
Pastors: Sign Up for Our Next J29 Workshop
 |
What Else We’re Reading
More in Common: “The Fallout That Wasn't: American Support for Ukraine Amidst Political Shift”
Overall, Americans are 20 times more likely to be sympathetic to Ukraine than Russia. A majority of the country (67%), including a majority of Republicans (65%), believe that the US should keep sending aid to Ukraine until an end to the war has been established or negotiated.
The xxxxxx: “She’s Just the Tip of the Trump Administration’s Racist Iceberg”
THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION has had more than its share of scandalous personnel picks, but Pentagon Deputy Press Secretary Kingsley Wilson takes “scandalous” to a whole new level—as in, Protocols of the Elders of Zion–level.
The Guardian: “US added to international watchlist for rapid decline in civic freedoms”
The United States has been added to the Civicus Monitor Watchlist, which identifies countries that the global civil rights watchdog believes are currently experiencing a rapid decline in civic freedoms.
Research: “Christian Nationalism Acts as Compensation for More Feminine Men”
It is no surprise that women strongly identify as feminine and weakly as masculine, while the inverse is true for men. However, fully 29 percent of men score above 25 on the femininity scale – a substantial minority of men who identify as some significant degree of feminine. The key, though, is whether any Christian nationalist men identify as some measure of feminine. This is surprising: 24 percent of men in the least Christian nationalist quartile identify as some degree of feminine (25 or above) while 35 percent of men in the highest Christian nationalist quartile do. There is a steady rise of femininity scores for men across the Christian nationalism scale, which, as we can see in the figure below, holds in the presence of demographic and other controls in a statistical model. The most feminine men are 10 percentage points more Christian nationalist than those perceiving no femininity. We can also see that levels of femininity have no link to Christian nationalism for women.
Research: “New research reveals psychological ‘booster shots’ can strengthen resistance to misinformation”
A new study has found that targeted psychological interventions can significantly enhance long-term resistance to misinformation. Dubbed “psychological booster shots,” these interventions improve memory retention and help individuals recognize and resist misleading information more effectively over time.
For example, the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the free speech rights of the KKK.
Khalil is a legal resident and is married to a U.S. citizen who is pregnant. The Supreme Court has ruled that the Bill of Rights applies to legal residents.
 | A guest post by
|
Thank you for subscribing to American Values Coalition newsletter.
| ||||||||||
