Latest news with #Federalist
Yahoo
3 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Civics in the time of MAGA: Junior high kids get right what we adults have gotten wrong
So, I'm sitting here on a Thursday afternoon, watching a bunch of junior-high-school kids answering questions about American government and constitutional rights. And the sad irony is they know more about it than at least 90% of the politicians and elected officials I cover on a daily basis. It's called the National Civics Bee. It's like a spelling bee, but with civics. And Thursday was the state finals, held at the downtown Wichita headquarters of the Kansas Leadership Center. What made this a lot more fun than the usual 'bee' format was it was set up to allow for audience participation. Attendees (in a separate group) could play along with the competitors and test their own knowledge. I talked with Chris Green of the Leadership Center and we both agreed it would be fun to invite some of our elected officials next year to see see how they stack up against the sixth-, seventh- and eighth graders in the contest. I wonder how many would accept the challenge. The questions ranged from fairly easy, like . . . Q: A new education reform bill was introduced in Congress and successfully passed through both the House of Representatives and the Senate. What is the next step before the bill can become law? A: The president must sign the bill into law or take no action for 10 days, after which it will automatically become law. . . . to the detailed and difficult, for example. . . Q: In Federalist number 39, how does Madison distinguish between a federal and national government, and what does this distinction suggest about the nature of the Constitution as a product of the convention? A: Madison claims that the Constitution is both federal and national, with the House of Representatives representing the national and the Senate representing the federal, suggesting that the constitution will balance power between the state and national. (I got that one wrong. I picked the answer with the House representing the federal and Senate national). In addition to the multiple choice, the five finalists had to read from and answer judges' questions on an essay they wrote on a current issue, ranging from saving rural hospitals to reforming state policy on driver's license revocation. When all was said and done, Tanya Ramesh of Wichita won the competition, a $1,000 giant check, and a ticket to Washington for the national finals. Madeline Stewart of Overland Park took second and $500, while Zane Hoff of Salina got third and $250. I thought the Civics Bee was one of the coolest events I've been to in a while, so I hesitate to even bring this up, but some of the questions probably need updating in this era of MAGA. For instance: Q: How did Afroyim versus Rusk in 1967 affect the government's power regarding citizenship revocation? A: It limited the government's ability to to revoke citizenship. Afroyim v. Rusk was a landmark case that ruled: 'Congress has no power under the Constitution to divest a person of his United States citizenship absent his voluntary renunciation thereof. ' The court's revised that stance since, to allow citizenship to be revoked (called denaturalization) if it was granted on false pretenses that would have prevented it in the first place, for example, terrorists or Nazi war criminals living under false identities. Now, denaturalization has become a key part of President Donald Trump's ongoing efforts to deport as many non-white immigrants as possible, whom he accuses (echoing a former world leader named Adolf) of 'poisoning the blood of our country.' During his first term, Trump created 'Operation Second Look,' a program to comb immigrant citizens' paperwork for misstatements or errors that would allow them to be denaturalized. This term, his top immigration advisor, Stephen Miller, has vowed to 'turbocharge' Operation Second Look, which could also lead to denaturalization and deportation of American-born children of immigrants, under Trump's executive order that purports to end birthright citizenship. Another Civics Bee question that caught my attention was this one: Q: Which statement best reflects the application of federalism in the Clean Air Act, considering the following quotation, 'the Clean Air Act represents a partnership between federal and state governments to improve air quality and to protect public health.' A: The federal government sets national standards, while states can implement stricter regulations based on local needs. That's the way it's supposed to work. But it brought to mind a recent press release I got from Kansas 1st District Rep. Tracey Mann, taking a victory lap over Congress rolling back California anti-pollution regulations. At the time, I remember thinking, 'What business is this of Tracey Mann's?' given that he represents a district that sprawls from Colorado to one county away from Missouri, where there are about four times as many cows as people and the largest city, Lawrence, would be a minor suburb of Los Angeles. What he knows of the pollution challenges facing California I'm guessing would fit on a microscope slide, but he couldn't care less as long as he can own some libs and send out a press release titled: 'Rep. Mann Reverses Biden Green New Deal Policies.' When I was growing up, we didn't have civics bees. We barely had any civics education. Truth be told, most of what we ever knew about the workings of government came from 'Schoolhouse Rock,' three-minute educational cartoons sandwiched between Jonny Quest and Scooby-Doo on Saturday mornings. Cue the music: 'I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill.' I can't help thinking if we'd had civics bees back then, we wouldn't be in this mess we're in today. So it lifts my heart to see these earnest young kids competing over who knows the most about the people and ideals that built America. It gives me great hope that their future will be better than the present that my generation has handed them.
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
‘Racist babies?': Woke federal education program yet another example of ‘wasteful' spending
The Federalist elections correspondent Brianna Lyman has spoken on a federal education program that warned teachers about babies being racist and changing the lyrics to 'Old MacDonald'. 'Our test scores … have declined since the creation of the Department of Education,' Ms Lyman told Sky News host James Morrow. 'Where is the money actually being put toward? 'This is another example of wasteful federal spending.'
Sky News AU
4 days ago
- Politics
- Sky News AU
Megyn Kelly vindicated after left's ‘gaslighting' on Imane Khelif exposed
The Federalist elections correspondent Brianna Lyman has lauded Megyn Kelly after being proven right on Olympian Imane Khelif. Bombshell documents show the gold-medal winner at the Paris 2024 Olympics allegedly had male DNA. 'Unfortunately, there is so much gaslighting coming from the left,' Ms Lyman told Sky News host James Morrow. 'Because they're into this gender bending ideology, they tried to smear and malign her.'
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump Attacked One of His Top Allies Out of the Blue. We Know Why.
Last week, President Donald Trump took many in the legal world by surprise when he attacked the chief architect of his first-term judicial nomination agenda, Leonard Leo, as a 'sleazebag' who 'probably hates America.' The tone was distinctly Trumpian, but the target was a bit of a shock. Back in 2016, Leo gave the new president-elect a slate of 21 Supreme Court candidates, all 'Federalist people.' Selection of the 234 judges appointed in Trump's first term was then 'in-sourced' to the Federalist Society, according to former White House counsel Don McGahn. Trump's outburst marks a dramatic jolt to the relationship between Trump and the Federalist Society, as well as for the conservative bench at large. It is not likely a rupture, but rather a signal that the society must bend the knee—as all others seeking federal benevolence must do—to keep its prized place. Like the traditional Republican elites Trump has left in the dust, the society needs to find a place among the ornaments on the presidential mantel, or else be cast into the dust. Founded in 1982, the Federalist Society has long exercised subtle, behind-the-scenes influence on Republican judicial picks. Its official line emphasizing 'originalism' and 'textualism' belies how predictably its picks track Republican views on regulation, presidential power, and religion. Such priorities reflect Leo's enduring closeness to traditional Republican elites such as Sen. Mitch McConnell. In 2016, it was Trump who benefited from the Federalist Society stamp of approval. A staggering 77 percent of Republican voters that year reported that Supreme Court appointments were 'very important' to them. The Federalist Society's process for credentialing nominees as clearly conservative helped Trump ostentatiously meet his campaign promise to appoint judges who would please these voters. And the bench he built didn't disappoint. Since 2020, a Supreme Court with three Trump appointees has advanced Republican priorities on affirmative action, abortion, and religious liberties. Perhaps even more significant have been its dramatic curbs on federal regulation in the form of 'the major questions doctrine' and end to so-called Chevron deference, not to mention its stratospheric advancement of executive power in Trump v. U.S. In 2025, the judicial and political terrain look different. Thanks in part to rulings like Trump v. U.S., the president is no longer the supplicant. Traditional Republican elites are now 'terrified' of an Elon Musk–funded primary instigated by the president. He is no longer in thrall to policy and personnel choices. Sen. McConnell, for example, has voted against numerous Trump Cabinet nominations—not, to be sure, with any effect. Other stalwarts within the party have bucked against the president's tariffs—again to no palpable result. It is thus not simply that the president and Republican elites have split on policy: The brute force of Trump's political power means that, for now at least, the president has the whip hand. This same pivot is playing out in the president's relation to the courts. For one thing, an administration that doesn't know the meaning of basic constitutional rights such as habeas corpus—even as it violates that right—is unlikely to be one that places great weight on fidelity to originalist constitutional values. For another, a White House that treats mandatory federal spending as a cudgel against ideological foes will surely view judicial nominations in the same transactional way—just another perk with which to punish enemies or reward friends. Today, courts rank among the hostile. Remember that the first Trump administration received bruising losses in cases concerning Deferred Action for Child Arrivals and a census question on citizenship. Even though Trump himself had appointed a full quarter of that bench by the end of his first term, the administration has faced a 'stunning' tally of court losses in recent weeks. Worse, decisions that once were Republican trophies wrought from an archconservative Supreme Court are now albatrosses weighing the Trump II project down. Take last month's ruling invalidating the April 2 tariffs. This unanimous three-judge ruling—joined by one Trump appointee—hinged upon the 'major questions doctrine' that is a cornerstone of the Roberts court's deregulatory policy agenda. Trump is here being bitten by the beast he bred. And unlike traditional Republican elites, Trump now is not pursuing a policy agenda in which the federal courts could be useful aides. The White House has shown that it believes itself capable of redefining citizenship, geography, and even biology by fiat. It hardly needs hand-holding by black-robed jurists. Like Congress, the hope is that the courts can also be relegated to mere accoutrement. In attacking Leo, Trump is thus simply making plain this new alignment of power. Like other parts of the Republican establishment, he is saying, Leo and the Federalist Society have a role to play only if they are unswervingly loyal not to the Constitution, but to Trump's own project. Moreover, the president has made it clear what he demands from judges: As his post on Leo explained, he believes that the only reason a judge would rule against his policies is bad faith. So what he wants are men—like his recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit nominee Emil Bove—of dubious ethics but unswerving and uncaveated loyalty to the president. It will now be up to the Federalist Society to decide whether they will bend the knee, following the example of other Republican elites, to say nothing of law firms and universities. While it might seem that fealty to 'original public meaning' and to history would make this an insuperably difficult ask, it is a mistake to think that the legal conservative movement cannot adapt. Several prominent judges appointed by Trump, for example, have already pivoted from 'originalism' to a vague 'common good' conservativism. (If this sounds harmless, just take a second to reflect on who is implicitly getting to define the common good.) Even those who want to keep their originalist credentials are likely to find new play of the joints of their 'theory.' Witness, for example, the flip-flops of some judges and scholars on the long-settled question of birthright citizenship, including at least one prominent conservative appellate judge said to be auditioning for a Trump appointment to the Supreme Court. Even on the ground, the young men (and a few women) who swell the Federalist Society's ranks in law schools are reportedly champing at the bit to embrace the Trumpian project. So there's no reason to think the Federalist Society won't take the hint. Once, the society styled itself a guardian of the original Constitution. Tomorrow, they may serve a different master as they screen candidates to serve in the judicial Praetorian Guard that this president so keenly desires.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump unleashes MAGA rebellion on Federalist Society
President Trump and his allies are waging war with the Federalist Society as he sees parts of his second-term agenda blocked by some of his own judicial appointees. Simmering tensions broke into full public view after Trump called longtime Federalist leader Leonard Leo a 'sleazebag' after a court blocked the bulk of Trump's tariffs. The boiling point has unleashed a rebellion pitting the Make America Great Again movement against the conservative legal stronghold that helped Trump reshape the courts during his first term by offering up conservative judges as suggestions to fill benches across the country. As the president embarks on choosing his next set of judicial nominees in his second-term, his decisions are now being shaped by a new, MAGA-branded team. Inside the White House, judicial appointments are being spearheaded by chief of staff Susie Wiles, White House counsel David Warrington and Deputy White House counsel Steve Kenny. The Federalist Society once played a central role in advising Trump's White House on those decisions. But in the president's second term, the process has shifted to include outside influence from the Article III Project, which is spearheaded by close Trump legal ally Mike Davis. Davis served as chief counsel for nominations to Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) during Trump's first term, where in that role he helped clear the way for the president's judicial nominees. David also previously clerked for Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump's first nominee to the high court. His relationship with Trump grew closer after the FBI raided the president's Mar-a-Lago resort and he defended the president in the press. Meanwhile, the Federalist Society looked the other way, Davis said in an interview with The Hill. 'They abandoned President Trump during the lawfare against him,' he said. 'And not only did they abandon him — they had several FedSoc leaders who participated in the lawfare and threw gas on the fire.' It's a major shift from Trump's first term, when Trump's alliance with Leo was bountiful. Trump ushered in a Supreme Court 6-3 conservative supermajority that left Federalist Society panelists popping champagne at one recent convention to celebrate their success. Leo built the lists that Trump chose from to select his three high court nominees: Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. The three justices have delivered significant wins for the conservative legal movement, including expanding the Second Amendment, overturning the constitutional right to abortion, reining in federal agency power and reinforcing religious rights. It culminated decades of efforts by Leo to challenge liberal legal orthodoxy by building a pipeline that propels young conservative attorneys into powerful judicial roles. Fueled by a network of donors, Leo's groups have directed massive sums to conservative legal, political and public relations organizations, gaining him a villainous reputation among Democrats. The Federalist Society has become a bastion of that project, with Leo serving as its longtime former executive vice president. Formed in 1982 by a group of law students opposed to liberal ideology at prominent law schools, the Federalist Society has become a dominant force, though it officially takes no position on any legal or political issue as a 501(c)3 nonprofit. But Trump is souring on the group in his second term as he expresses frustration with his judicial picks who've blocked parts of his agenda. Last week, the president turned his ire toward Leo and the Federalist Society after the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked the bulk of his tariffs. 'I was new to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges,' Trump wrote in a winding post. 'I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.' In a statement responding to the attack, Leo declined to attack Trump, instead praising him for 'transforming' the federal courts and calling it the president's 'most important legacy.' Trump's post went on to slam the Federalist Society for the 'bad advice' it gave him on 'numerous' judicial nominations. 'This is something that cannot be forgotten!' Trump said. A Federalist Society spokesperson did not return multiple requests for comment. It remains unclear why Trump specifically targeted Leo in his response to the tariff ruling. The trade court panel included one of Trump's own appointees, Judge Timothy Reif. Reif is a Democrat, as federal law required Trump to keep partisan balance on the trade court. Steven Calabresi, who co-chairs the Federalist Society's board with Leo, submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in the case alongside other prominent conservative attorneys calling Trump's tariffs unlawful. And the New Civil Liberties Alliance, a libertarian group that has received funding from entities associated with Leo, is suing Trump over his China tariffs on behalf of a small business, though that case was not the subject of last week's ruling. But the splintering relationship between Trump and the Federalist Society has been 'brewing for years,' Davis said. In January, allies of the president grew outraged online after Politico reported that a public relations firm chaired by Leo was assisting an advocacy group founded by former Vice President Mike Pence in a campaign to derail Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s nomination. Pence defended Leo and the Federalist Society on X Monday, calling them 'indispensable partners' throughout Trump's first term and suggesting conservative Americans owe the group a 'debt of gratitude.' And beyond the cabinet, some prominent conservative attorneys have criticized Trump's nomination of Emil Bove, a close legal ally who worked as Trump's former criminal defense attorney, to a federal appeals court. Ed Whelan, a Federalist Society mainstay and prominent conservative attorney who has been critical of Trump, has particularly gone after Trump's nomination of Bove, describing the attorney as a bully. 'Bove's admirers call him 'fearless,' but the same could be said of mafia henchmen,' Whelan wrote for the National Review. Whelan's comments sparked rebuttals from the top levels of Trump's Justice Department. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who represented Trump with Bove, accused Whelan of being envious, saying he was leveling 'cheap shots.' Harmeet Dhillon, who leads the Justice Department's civil rights division, called it one of 'dumbest and nastiest headlines' she had ever seen. 'Some small minded men appear to be jealous and bitter that the best they can do is dictate their unedited mean girl thoughts into their phones and have some other mean girls publish the same,' Dhillon wrote on X. Trump's second term presents another chance to elevate conservative-minded judicial nominees nationwide. Davis said there's no going back to the 2016 playbook. 'We have to update our playbook, and we have to have a different prototype for judges,' he said. 'They need to be bold and fearless, like Emil Bove.' 'And I'm not saying they need to be bold and fearless for Trump, he added. 'They need to be bold and fearless for the Constitution.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
