logo
What would our Founders think of this Iowa official's warning letter?

What would our Founders think of this Iowa official's warning letter?

Yahoo19-02-2025

(Photo illustration via Getty Images)
When Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and their pals set their quill pens to parchment to write the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, Decatur County, Iowa, was still a half century off in the future.
Now, 236 years later, the county's top law enforcement official needs a refresher on the intent of those 45 words the Founding Fathers settled on in the opening of the Bill of Rights.
County Attorney Alan Wilson ought to review three of the five fundamental freedoms the First Amendment protects — the freedoms of speech, of the press, and to petition the government for a 'redress of grievances.'
Exercising those rights is exactly what Rita Audlehelm of Van Wert did in a letter to the editor the Leon Journal-Reporter published on Feb. 5.
Audlehelm is aggrieved, as our Founding Fathers would call it. She wants redress of her grievances — for the absence from the courthouse in Leon of one of three elected county supervisors.
Steve Fulkerson has not attended in person most board meetings since last October, even though each Decatur County supervisor is paid $32,120 annually. (The county attorney will be paid $65,638 this year, an Iowa State Association of Counties salary survey says.)
So, Audlehelm spoke by letter to the local newspaper.
'Did you know that the last 17 BOS (Board of Supervisors) meetings since 9/30/2024, Supervisor Fulkerson has attended just one meeting (12/23/2024) in person?' she wrote. 'There have been 8 call-ins by Fulkerson to meetings, the majority of those calls have been short, only long enough to address one issue, and some resulting in a dropped call.'
The same day the Journal-Reporter printed Audlehelm's letter, Wilson wrote to her on official county attorney stationery, with copies to the three supervisors, and sent his letter by certified mail.
His delivery method signaled to the 73-year-old retired school nurse that she better pay special attention to the letter's contents.
Wilson demanded, 'This letter serves as your Notice to Cease and Desist from making any further false, misleading, or defamatory statements against any elected official of Decatur County.'
He warned her, 'I am advising the Board of Supervisors to speak with their private legal counsel about the defamatory statements you have made against them, particularly if you don't retract these false, misleading, and defamatory statements immediately.'
The reputations of elected county officials hardly were sullied by this one taxpayer, and her letter certainly did not spread any deliberate falsehoods. Even if her comments and questions hurt the feelings of county supervisors, the prosecutor had no business lecturing her or making a not-so-subtle threat of possible legal action against her.
The timing of Wilson's letter is ironic, considering the climate in our nation when our new president has a history of referring to government officials and employees as morons, crooks, frauds, birdbrains, sleazy, deranged and swamp-dwellers. The president's promise to stop government lawyers from weaponizing the judicial system makes Wilson's letter even more out of step.
Just as our president has the right to malign those with whom he disagrees, Rita Audlehelm can freely criticize her county attorney and her three county supervisors, even if her criticism annoys or aggravates them.
Audlehelm used neither sticks nor stones to make her point. She merely posed questions that others among the county's 7,700 residents were asking, too:
'Why are you not attending Board of Supervisors meetings and the committee meetings assigned to you?'
'How would you address a 60-day absence taken by any other elected official in Decatur County?'
Audlehelm ended her letter by saying, 'I urge the citizens of Decatur County to remain engaged in your county government and the services that are rendered by those county employees that show up every day to do the work they were elected to do.'
Democracies falter when citizens lose interest or cannot ask questions, seek answers, and make comment without fearing government reprisal against them.
So, when an elected official pursues a taxpayer for her fair comment and criticism, it seems like a strange way to protect and defend the Constitution.
Decatur County Attorney Alan Wilson should put aside his attempt to intimidate taxpayer Rita Audlehelm and study the biography of his county's namesake.
Decatur County bears the last name of Stephen Decatur, a decorated U.S. Navy commodore who fought on the shores of Tripoli in the years after the American Revolution and once commanded the USS Constitution.
Decatur was a man of words, deeds, and conviction.
He was on a naval panel that court-marshaled Commodore James Barron for 'unpreparedness' in an 1807 incident in which a British ship captured a frigate under Barron's command.
Barron later sought reinstatement, but Decatur opposed that in strongly worded letters to government officials. Barron claimed Decatur slandered him and sought a retraction. Failing that, Barron then demanded a duel.
Following the custom of the time, Decatur accepted the challenge rather than retract his statements.
So, on a morning in March 1820, facing one another eight paces apart with pistols drawn, Barron and Decatur both fired their guns and hit their targets.
Barron lived. Decatur did not.
The cost of free speech for Stephen Decatur was his life.
A final note: Iowa's founders, along with protecting speech, press and petition rights in the Iowa Constitution, included a provision disqualifying anyone who engaged in a duel from ever holding public office.
Rita Audlehelm might be interested to know Iowans repealed that ban in 1992.
Randy Evans is a member of the Iowa Writers' Collaborative and his columns may be found on his blog, Stray Thoughts.
Editor's note: Please consider subscribing to the collaborative and the authors' blogs to support their work.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Suspect in ‘King of the Hill' star Jonathan Joss' murder allowed to walk free after posting bail
Suspect in ‘King of the Hill' star Jonathan Joss' murder allowed to walk free after posting bail

New York Post

time21 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Suspect in ‘King of the Hill' star Jonathan Joss' murder allowed to walk free after posting bail

The Texas man accused of murdering 'King of the Hill' actor Jonathan Joss has been released after posting bond, according to reports. Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez, 56, is confined under full house arrest after posting $200,000 bond Monday evening, Bexar County Court records show. 3 Suspect Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez in his booking photo. He's accused of murder. Getty Images 3 Actor Jonathan Joss was fatally shot. NBC He is barred from possessing any firearms during his release, is subject to random drug testing, and cannot contact Joss' family, Fox 7 reported. Alvarez allegedly gunned 59-year-old Joss down on their San Antonio street Sunday evening after a heated argument. 3 Actor Jonathan Joss (R) and his husband Tristan Kern de Gonzales. Facebook/Jonathan Joss Joss' husband claimed the attack was motivated by homophobia, but police have said they've found no evidence supporting that.

Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble
Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble

The Department of Justice (DOJ) sent an unprecedented letter to a Brazilian Supreme Court justice in May, admonishing the judge for ordering American-based video platform Rumble to restrict the free speech of a user on U.S. soil, describing the orders as international overreach that lack enforceability. Rumble, a popular U.S.-based video-sharing platform that bucks censorship efforts frequently found on other video and social media platforms, is at the center of an international battle to protect free speech that has been ongoing for months. Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes ordered the suspension of Rumble in the South American country back in February over claims the U.S. company did not comply with court orders, including removing the accounts of a Brazilian man living in the U.S. and seeking political asylum. "If you look at what's happening around the world, it's clear we're living through a perilous moment for anyone who believes in freedom of expression — a fundamental human right enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and recognized globally, even by the United Nations," Rumble CEO Chris Pavlovski exclusively told Fox News Digital Tuesday following the DOJ's May letter. Rumble, Trump Media Declare 'Complete Victory For Free Speech' In Win Against Brazilian Judge "The fact that Rumble has become a central player in this global fight for free speech is a powerful validation of our mission. We're proud to stand at the front lines of this effort and grateful that President Trump and his administration have made this battle a foreign policy priority." Read On The Fox News App Moraes is now in the U.S. government's crosshairs after the DOJ sent a letter to him in May outlining his reported international overreach into U.S. law affecting the First Amendment, as well as Secretary of State Marco Rubio revealing in a congressional hearing that the Brazilian judge could face U.S. sanctions. Moraes had ordered Rumble to remove a user from its platform as he stands accused of spreading false information online and is considered a fugitive in Brazil. Rumble refused and was threatened with financial penalties for the lack of cooperation. Trump-backed Media Company Sues Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, Claims He's Illegally Censoring Free Speech The DOJ letter, dated May 7 and made public Thursday, argued that Moraes' orders are not enforceable in the U.S. "These purported directives to Rumble are made under threat of monetary and other penalties," the letter, signed by DOJ official Ada E. Bosque, reads. "We take no position on the enforceability of the various orders and other judicial documents directing Rumble to act within the territory of Brazil, which is a matter of Brazilian law. However, to the extent that these documents direct Rumble to undertake specific actions in the United States, we respectfully advise that such directives are not enforceable judicial orders in the United States." The DOJ did not have additional comment to provide when approached about the letter Tuesday. Pavlovski described to Fox Digital that the letter is "unprecedented" and draws a clear line to foreign nations that they cannot attempt to thwart U.S. laws and the First Amendment. "The letter from the U.S. Department of Justice to a foreign judge over censorship orders is unprecedented," Pavlovski said. "It draws a bright red line: foreign officials cannot issue censorship orders that violate the First Amendment or bypass U.S. law. That kind of extraterritorial overreach is incompatible with American sovereignty. And that's good news, not just for Americans, but for free societies everywhere." Rumble Reveals Censorship Demands From Surprising List Of Countries As Ceo To Testify On Free Speech Threats The letter continued that there are established channels for international legal proceedings, which the DOJ said the judge bypassed, and directed the Brazilian judge to various proper procedures he could take regarding the court orders. Rumble facing restrictions in foreign nations is hardly new, with the platform currently disabled in China, Russia and France, as well as Brazil. It has also previously received censorship demands in nations such as the U.K., Australia and New Zealand, but has maintained its free speech objective. The DOJ's letter comes as Rubio revealed in a House Committee on Foreign Affairs hearing in May that the State Department is considering sanctions against Moraes under the Magnitsky Act. The Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act authorizes the U.S. government to sanction individuals overseas if determined responsible for human rights abuses or corruption. "We've seen pervasive censorship, political persecution targeting the entire opposition, including journalists and ordinary citizens," Republican Florida Rep. Cory Mills asked Rubio at the hearing in May. "What they're now doing is imminent, politically motivated imprisonment of former President Bolsonaro. This crackdown has extended beyond Brazil's borders, impacting individuals on U.S. soil., the 2023 Financial Times article actually talked about this. What do you intend to do? And would you be looking at Supreme Court justice sanctioning of Alexandre de Moraes under the Global Magnitsky Act?" Brazilian Ex-president Bolsonaro Ordered To Stand Trial Over Alleged Coup Plan Rubio responded, "That's under review right now, and it's a great, great possibility that will happen." Days later, Rubio posted to X that the State Department will roll out visa restrictions on foreigners found "complicit" in censoring Americans. "For too long, Americans have been fined, harassed, and even charged by foreign authorities for exercising their free speech rights," Rubio wrote on X. "Today, I am announcing a new visa restriction policy that will apply to foreign officials and persons who are complicit in censoring Americans. Free speech is essential to the American way of life — a birthright over which foreign governments have no authority." "Foreigners who work to undermine the rights of Americans should not enjoy the privilege of traveling to our country," Rubio added, not naming specific individuals responsible for such actions. "Whether in Latin America, Europe, or elsewhere, the days of passive treatment for those who work to undermine the rights of Americans are over." Moraes is also overseeing the upcoming trial of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of allegedly attempting to overturn his 2022 election results. Brazil President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva slammed the U.S. for threatening sanctions against Moraes in comment this week. "It is unacceptable for the president of any country in the world to comment on the decision of the Supreme Court of another country," da Silva said Tuesday, according to Reuters. The Brazilian president added that the U.S. should understand the importance of "respecting the integrity of institutions in other countries." Fox News Digital reached out to Moraes' office Tuesday but did not immediately receive a article source: Trump DOJ takes 'unprecedented' step admonishing foreign judge in free speech case centered on Rumble

With enough signatures, marijuana amendment will be reviewed by Florida Supreme Court
With enough signatures, marijuana amendment will be reviewed by Florida Supreme Court

Yahoo

time35 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

With enough signatures, marijuana amendment will be reviewed by Florida Supreme Court

A ballot initiative to permit recreational use of marijuana for adults in Florida obtained enough signatures this week to trigger a legally-mandated financial and judicial review. Smart and Safe Florida, the group sponsoring the constitutional amendment, gathered more than 377,000 signatures verified by local elections supervisors, according to the state Division of Elections website. This surpasses a threshold of 220,000 signatures for the state-required review. Attorney General James Uthmeier must now transmit the language to be reviewed by the Florida Supreme Court, which must find clear, single-subject language in the proposed ballot text. The initiative allows adults at least 21 years old to possess, purchase or use marijuana for nonmedical purposes. It also prohibits marketing toward children and smoking or vaping in public. This language is slightly different from a marijuana initiative last year that gathered about 56% support from Florida voters, falling short of the state's 60% threshold needed for passage. It initially did not specify any prohibitions for marketing toward children or public use of marijuana. 2024 Elections: Recreational marijuana in Florida snuffed out after amendment falls short of 60% In addition to its multiple hurdles to become a proposed amendment on the 2026 midterm ballot, Smart & Safe Florida is arguing that a new state law on ballot petitions is infringing on First Amendment rights. The organization filed an emergency motion to a federal judge May 30, saying the state's new prohibition on non-resident petition circulators has "injured" the organization's "number of people to carry their message to the public." The law, signed promptly by Gov. Ron DeSantis, increased restrictions and potential penalties to groups seeking to propose a ballot initiative. One such restriction is by limiting each volunteer to only collect 25 petitions, which Smart & Safe Florida argued in their motion already has limited the capability of their volunteer network. In their motion, the organization said that the state law's nonresident provision is "very likely the difference between" the amendment getting on the ballot or not. The marijuana amendment's downfall was a shocking result in the November elections, since many surveys found enough support from Floridians for it to pass and it was also among the most expensive ballot measure campaigns in the country. Yet the campaign against it, spearheaded by DeSantis and other state leaders, included months spent arguing its passage would have deep implications for the state's tourism. DeSantis said at the time that Florida residents would smell a weed stench in the air, and he said the proposal's purpose was mainly to benefit large marijuana companies seeking profits. More recently, the money to defeat the marijuana initiative was called into question by House lawmakers who investigated the foundation behind First Lady Casey DeSantis' signature initiative, Hope Florida. Lawmakers accused the fundraising arm of that program of improperly funneling part of a $67 million Medicaid contractor's settlement to the political committee that targeted the ballot amendment, headed by Uthmeier, the governor's then-chief of staff. Round two: After 2024 failure, backers of Florida recreational marijuana amendment try again for 2026 This reporting content is supported by a partnership with Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. USA Today Network-Florida First Amendment reporter Stephany Matat is based in Tallahassee, Fla. She can be reached at SMatat@ On X: @stephanymatat. This article originally appeared on Tallahassee Democrat: Recreational marijuana effort in Florida advances toward 2026 ballot

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store