The media continues to fawn over Texas's new Senator-Elect, James Talarico. The New York Times draws a contrast between the traditional conservative evangelicalism and Talarico's progressive christianity.
Mr. Talarico, an eighth-generation Texan and onetime seminarian, understood all that. His own grandfather, once a Baptist preacher, found himself on the "moderate" side when conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention in the 1970s and '80s, a move masterminded in Texas. Mr. Talarico was raised in a church that has been known locally for its progressive activism for decades.
In a town hall hosted by CNN in October, a voter from his hometown of Round Rock, Texas, pressed him "Christian to Christian" about provocative past statements like "God is nonbinary."
"Do you believe that the Bible is the absolute source of truth and God's final authoritative word, even when our culture says otherwise?" she asked.
"Yes," Mr. Talarico answered.
For many, his rise was a reminder of the capacious borders of Christianity in the state.
"The loudest voices that people hear are these megachurches, and they think that's what we're all doing," said the Rev. Janet Maykus. She was raised in a progressive church in then-rural Lancaster, Texas, where she was taught that "faith is something particular to every person," rooted in justice and kindness rather than doctrine.
Ms. Maykus, 64, now leads the United Christian Church of Austin, a small mainline Protestant congregation in the capital.
When her congregation recites the Lord's Prayer, it's a "train wreck," she said fondly. Some people recite a version with gender-inclusive language; others tack on a few extra words here and there. In every service, Ms. Maykus also prays aloud for "our siblings in Christ who have lost their way to the lure of white Christian nationalism."
In recent months, she said, she has talked with multiple visitors to the church who said they had been inspired by Mr. Talarico to seek out a church like hers. She is baptizing a baby on Sunday.
The growth of progressive congregations like hers is exactly why Robert Jeffress, pastor of the politically influential church First Baptist Dallas, watched Mr. Talarico's ascent with alarm, he said in an interview this week.
"What James Talarico believes about the Bible and about Jesus, those beliefs don't disqualify him from being a senator, but they do disqualify him from being a Christian pastor, or even a Christian," Mr. Jeffress said, referring in part to Mr. Talarico's suggestion that Christianity is not the only religion that points to the truth.
Last Sunday, Mr. Jeffress said, he alluded to Mr. Talarico as he preached about the tower of Babel, warning how "false religion always mixes truth with error."
Mr. Jeffress's church, established in the 1860s, is one of many institutions that have long made Texas a major exporter of politically conservative Christianity.
Texas is where the folksy fundamentalist radio host W. Lee O'Daniel became governor in 1938, with a platform based on the Ten Commandments and low taxes. It's where W.A. Criswell, a predecessor of Mr. Jeffress, called the separation of church and state "the figment of some infidel's imagination" in 1984. And it's where Dan Patrick, the state's current lieutenant governor, described his socially conservative agenda as an expression of his Christian faith.
In the Viramontes v. Cook County case pending in the Supreme Court, Cook County has filed a Suggestion of Mootness in response to a Motion to Dismiss Petitioner Cutberto Viramontes from the case. The question presented in the case is: "Whether the Second and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the right to possess AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles." Cook County argues that standing in the challenge is based on Mr. Viramontes' wish to obtain an AR-15 style rifle, but Christopher Khaya, the only other individual petitioner in the case, only wishes to obtain an AK-47 style rifle. Mr. Khaya, the argument goes, does not have standing to litigate the question presented because he did not state he wishes to obtain an AR-15.
Yet Cook County itself previously classified the AK-47 as within the general category "AR-15 platform weapons." The Brief for the Cook County Respondents states:
Specific firearms are outlawed under the Ordinance, including the "AK-47," "AR-15," "Bushmaster XM15," "Bushmaster Carbon 15," "Bushmaster MOE series," "ArmaLite M15," "Armalite M15-T," and "Olympic Arms PCR." [Cook County, Ill., Code of Ordinances] § 54-211(7) (hereafter AR-15 platform weapons).
The County uses the term "AR-15 platform weapons" throughout its Brief as a convenient shorthand to describe the types of rifles it bans. For instance, referring to how "the public increasingly purchased AR-15 platform weapons," in the next sentence it describes a shooting in which the perpetrator used "a semiautomatic AK-47 style rifle." Describing the features that tie such rifles together, the Brief states: "The Ordinance is limited to 'assault weapons' that are strictly defined as 'semiautomatic rifle[s]' able to accept a detachable large capacity magazine and one or more of certain military-style features, such as a folding or telescoping stock, a pistol grip without a stock, a barrel shroud, or a muzzle brake." (There is actually nothing specifically "military-style" about such features.)
In its Suggestion of Mootness, the County attempts to separate these common features by distinguishing the different model names and designs. Viramontes sought "to own a Smith and Wesson Military & Police AR-15 style semiautomatic rifle," while Khaya "wants an IMI [Industrial Military Industries] Galil semiautomatic rifle," which the petitioners themselves stated "is not an AR-15 style rifle but is largely based on the AK-47 design." But the question presented is not that narrow, instead referring generally to "AR-15 platform and similar semiautomatic rifles." To that, the County claims: "There are no record facts concerning whether the IMI Galil weapon operates similarly to an AR-15." For starters, how about the County's own Brief describing their common features to be that they are semiautomatic rifles, have the ability to accept a detachable magazine, and have a pistol grip, folding or telescoping stock, and a muzzle brake?
In sum, in its Brief, Cook County refers to "AK-47" rifles as encompassed in the general term "AR-15 platform weapons." Its denial of that in its Suggestion of Mootness cannot be regarded as well taken. Mr. Khaya has standing to litigate the question presented. There are also two association challengers who thereby also have standing.
In any event, as Cook County notes in its filing, Viramontes is consolidated with Grant v. Higgins, the challenge to Connecticut's prohibition on semiautomatic rifles, which is quite similar to that of Cook County. Therefore, regardless of what happens with Cook County's suggestion of mootness, the Grant case will be unaffected, and the Supreme Court is poised to decide this fundamental issue that lays at the heart of the Second Amendment.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. (Daniel Torok / B66 / Avalon/Newscom)
Outgoing GOP Representative Thomas Massie is planning to introduce an impeachment resolution against Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. Soon-to-be Democratic Speaker of the House Hakeem Jeffries says he's a "hard yes" on the idea. That makes it very likely it will happen. If not now, then when Democrats take control of Congress in January, after their big win in the midterm election. Hegseth richly deserves it, and should be convicted on at least two major charges: his role in starting an unconstitutional war and over 200 cases of outright murder.
On September 15, Rep. Massie outlined eight articles of impeachment against Hegseth (see here for his more detailed description). The two most compelling are these:
Article I - Waging War in Contravention of the War Powers Resolution of 1973 Section 2(c): Charges Secretary Hegseth with waging the Iran war despite no declaration of war, statutory authorization, attack on the United States, or imminent threat. It establishes that the war was unlawful from its inception….
Article V - Extrajudicial Killings: Charges Secretary Hegseth with replacing maritime law enforcement with unauthorized lethal military targeting of suspected drug traffickers, resulting in at least 221 deaths. It also addresses denial of quarter, secondary strikes on survivors, failure to rescue shipwrecked persons, and the creation of artificial legal authorities for the campaign.
Massie's Article V is the single most damning, in my view. Hegseth is a principal architect of the Trump Administration's campaign of "drug boat" strikes in the Caribbean and the Pacific. It has now killed an estimated 244 people, virtually all of them civilians (Massie's September figure of 221 is now somewhat outdated).
I have previously written about why these strikes are illegal (see here and here). But don't take my word for it, or even that of other libertarian or left-liberal experts, like Brian Finucane. Take that of John Yoo, former Bush Administration official, and leading academic advocate of sweeping executive power over foreign policy and national security issues. If you illegally order the deliberate killing of civilians - especially outside the context of a war - that's outright murder. And that's exactly what Pete Hegseth has done.
This would be true even if those killed were all would-be drug dealers seeking to transport illegal drugs for sale in the US. I have previously explained why it is unjust and illegal to kill suspected drug dealers out of hand and why they are not the legal or moral equivalent of terrorists or enemy combatants in a war. As GOP Sen. Rand Paul pointed out when the drug boat strikes began, "The reason we have trials and we don't automatically assume guilt is what if we make a mistake and they happen to be people fleeing the Venezuelan dictator? … off our coast it isn't our policy just to blow people up … even the worst people in our country, they still get a trial." But, in fact, the evidence indicates most were not on their way to the US and many were not transporting drugs at all. Some, for example, were just fishermen.
The Constitution allows impeachment and removal of executive branch officials for "high crimes and misdemeanors." You don't have to be a lawyer or legal scholar to figure out that complicity in over 200 murders qualifies as a "high crime."
Hegseth is also a key architect of the disastrous Iran War. In previous writings, I have explained why that war is illegal, violating both the Constitution, and the War Powers Act of 1973. Such a war requires congressional authorization, and Trump and Hegseth did not even try to get it. The war's illegality is one of the main reasons for its failure to this point, as failure to secure the broad public support needed to get congressional authorization ensured Trump lacked staying power to continue the fight effectively after the initial strikes didn't achieve a quick, decisive victory.
Initiating and waging an illegal war isn't a violation of criminal law (though perhaps it should be). But massive non-criminal illegal acts and abuses of power are impeachable under the history and original meaning of the Impeachment Clause of the Constitution. On that point, see analyses by Gene Healy of the Reason Foundation (formerly at the Cato Institute), and prominent conservative legal scholars Michael Stokes Paulsen (here, here, and here), and Keith Whittington. There are few bigger illegal abuses of power than starting a massive unconstitutional war.
In fairness, Trump and Hegseth are not alone in starting illegal wars. Barack Obama did it, too, with his unconstitutional wars against Libya and ISIS (which, for those keeping score, I condemned at the time). Obama likely deserved to be impeached, as well. But the fact that he got away with this illegality is no reason to spare Hegseth. To the contrary, past laxness is all the more reason to reestablish deterrence to prevent future wrongdoing. Furthermore, Trump and Hegseth's illegal war is on a much larger scale than Obama's were, and has had far worse results.
The only potentially valid objection to impeaching Hegseth is that it might fail, and backfire politically. But the Iran War is highly unpopular, and therefore impeachment on that basis is unlikely to backfire. The politics of the boat strikes is more debatable. The administration will surely try to defend them by arguing the victims deserved it because they were trying to smuggle dangerous drugs. But that can be countered by presenting the extensive evidence demonstrating that many were not on their way to the US or even transporting drugs at all. Testimony from members of the bereaved families of the victims can help make that point, and influence public opinion against Hegseth and the administration.
Hegseth is unpopular on Capitol Hill, which makes it potentially possible to secure the needed 11 or more GOP senators' votes required for conviction (the Democrats are going to have 54-56 senators in the next Congress, depending on the results of still-ongoing vote counts in close races in Alaska and Mississippi). But even if he gets acquitted, the process of impeachment and trial can send a useful signal, and further publicize the administration's massive criminality and wrongdoing.
Obviously, the ultimate perpetrator of these illegal acts is not Hegseth, but Trump. The former was following the latter's illegal orders (though he likely also helped influence Trump to give those orders in the first place). But sanctioning officials for obeying illegal orders is still important. That's one of the lessons of the Nuremberg trials. And, hopefully, the time will come for Trump to face sanctions for his many illegal actions, as well. As with Hegseth, the only plausible argument against impeaching him is political, not legal or moral.
Massie's impeachment resolution also outlines several other charges against Hegseth. I think most of them have merit, but are less significant than those covered above. I will not attempt to assess these other charges here.
UPDATE: Back in 2020, I critiqued the "slippery slope" argument against impeaching presidents for abuses of power that aren't technically crimes. My points apply with even greater force to any such argument against impeaching appointed officials, like Hegseth. In their case, there is no argument they have some kind of popular mandate from the electorate.
"It may well be that no fire will be discovered under all the smoke, but there is enough smoke here ... to warrant the unusual step of ... find[ing] out how this unusual prosecution came about."
For a six-year period, the Government investigated SGO executives for their role in a money laundering and bribery scheme related to the May, 2016 Philippine elections. The investigation culminated in a six-count indictment ("First Indictment"), returned on August 8, 2024, which charged [executives of] SGO and Smartmatic … [with] conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA") (Count I); violations of the FCPA (Count II); conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count III); and international laundering of monetary instruments (Counts IV, V, and VI). The FCPA "prohibits officers of a domestic concern from making corrupt payments to a 'foreign official.'"
SGO was not charged. In fact, SGO had been cooperating with the Government since 2021, years before the First Indictment was returned. {Although the Parties may dispute the breadth and quality of SGO's efforts to cooperate, there is no question that SGO and the Government were engaged in discussions and the exchange of documents related to this matter.}
The original trial date was set for October 7, 2024 … [but was eventually reset for 2026]….
As the court notes, the Trump Administration was skeptical of FCPA prosecutions, deprioritized FCPA enforcement generally, and "elected to close FCPA investigations into multiple companies." But despite that, in October 2025, the government added SGO as a defendant in the case. SGO then moved to dismiss the superseding indictment, alleging vindictive and selective prosecution, and sought discovery in support of that motion, "premised on political events that have embroiled Smartmatic in the wake of the 2020 election":
Since that election, multiple high-profile individuals and organizations connected to then-Former President Donald Trump have alleged that Smartmatic, a subsidiary of SGO, interfered in the election…. President Trump has also reposted content blaming Smartmatic for interfering in United States and Venezuelan elections, calling Smartmatic "disgraceful" and expressing that those who "rigged" the 2020 election must pay. In response to the statements by President Trump's confederates, Smartmatic brought various defamation suits, which are largely ongoing. SGO contends that President Trump's personal animus against SGO and assertion of its rights against President Trump's confederates precipitated the filing of the Superseding Indictment….
The court lays out the demanding standard for defendants' attempts to get discovery related to allegations of vindictive or selective prosecution, but concludes that in this case the standard was met. A brief excerpt (for more, including citations to precedents to which the court analogizes this case, see the full opinion):
From U.S. v. Spitzer (N.D. Ga.), filed by Magistrate Judge John Larkins on Oct. 9, and just affirmed Wednesday by Judge Eleanor Ross:
The indictment alleges that on July 23, 2024, Mr. Spitzer posted the following message on the website for the American Federation of Teachers, a labor union, regarding its president ("Individual #1"):
[Individual #1] is an ignorant incompetent cunt that should be worried for her safety. Fact that she is still alive. Liberal nazi deserves the bullet to head. Resign before she ends like what happened to trump at his speech. They won't miss fat bitch.
The indictment alleges that the post violated 18 U.S.C. § 875(c), which makes it a federal crime to transmit in interstate commerce any communication containing a threat to injure another person.
Mr. Spitzer argues that assuming the allegations in the indictment were true, it fails to state an offense because the posting was not a "true threat," or even a threat at all, and thus is protected by the First Amendment. As he sees it, the posting was simply political speech about a public figure and did not advocate the use of force or violence against Individual #1.
{In an effort to contextualize the posting, Mr. Spitzer points to an internet article in which Mike Pompeo, the former U.S. Secretary of State, described Individual #1 as "the most dangerous person in the world"; examples of "conservative politicians and commentators" criticizing her approach to school closures during the pandemic; and examples of Individual #1's own political statements. But these are not facts that the Court can consider at this juncture because they fall outside the four corners of the indictment.}
Evidence exists that Givens harvested points from a number of examinees' scores and then added them to other examinees' scores within the same test administration. Thus, she unilaterally elevated some examinees' scores to the minimum passing score of 270 or greater. Brech also identified at least one instance in which score alterations may have reduced an examinee's score-who otherwise would have passed-to a failing score. And in at least one instance, the individual who should have received the top score on the Arkansas Bar Examination had their score reduced thereby naming another examinee as the recipient of the highest score on the exam. If these allegations are true, these actions constitute an unprecedented breach of public trust.
The full statement from the court:
An internal review by Robert Brech, Executive Director of the Supreme Court of Arkansas's Office of Professional Conduct and Programs, has uncovered extensive irregularities involving the Court's Office of Professional Programs and the administration of the Arkansas Bar Examination. The matter was turned over to state and federal authorities.
As of today, the Prosecuting Attorney's Office for the Sixth Judicial District filed formal criminal charges against Nancie Givens for 65 counts of tampering with a public record under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-121 in connection with the alleged altering of numerous Arkansas Bar Examination scores and the deletion of files purportedly intended to conceal that misconduct. The charges followed a criminal investigation initiated in April 2026 by the Arkansas State Police and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. As always, all defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
In Ellis v. McNeese, written by Kansas District Court Judge W. Lee Fowler (decided April 22 but just posted on Westlaw), plaintiff's lawyer prevailed in getting his client reinstated as a nursing student who was punished by Flint Hills Technical College for a religiously motivated vaccine refusal. But when it came to getting attorney fees (which are allowed by the Kansas Preservation of Religious Freedom Act), the lawyer fared worse. The court concluded, for various reasons, that the lawyer would normally have been entitled to $100K in fees rather than the $300K he claimed, but then it went on to reduce the fees even further:
On October 20, 2025, Plaintiff's counsel filed a document entitled Opposition to Defendants Motion to Alter Judgment. Within that pleading the Plaintiff's counsel falsely cited two cases, State v. Baker, 290 Kan. 842, 235 P.3d 424 (2010) and Gannon v. State, 298 Kan. 110 310 P.3d 1196 (2014) for propositions of legal authority that are inconsistent with the case cited. In addition, there were no fewer than six false citations to non-existent Kansas case law. When confronted by these misrepresentations and facing a Motion for Sanctions, Plaintiff's counsel did not deny the allegations or explain how he came up with the false citations, he simply responded that the legal propositions contained in his pleadings were accurate and that his "citation irregularities were technical and clerical…".
Citations to non-existent cases can never be considered technical or clerical errors. They are not formatting or citation errors. They are unprofessional and sanctionable. This Court suspects that Plaintiff's counsel used a generative artificial intelligence program as an aid in drafting his pleading, but no such admission was forthcoming from counsel. Counsel's response to the claim for sanctions is simply the proposition of "no harm, no foul". In addition, this is not the only time Plaintiff's counsel has submitted false citations to a district court. See Anderson v. Aldrich, Douglas County District Court Case No. DG-2025-CV-429, Memorandum Opinion dated March 13, 2026.
I have long advocated using May 1 for this purpose. But November 7 is a worthy alternative candidate, which I am happy to adopt if it can attract a broad consensus.
Since 2007, I have advocated designating May 1 as an international Victims of Communism Day. The May 1 date was not my original idea. But I have probably devoted more time and effort to it than any other commentator. In my view, May 1 is the best possible date for this purpose because it is the day that communists themselves used to celebrate their ideology, and because it is associated with communism as a global phenomenon, not with any particular communist regime. However, I have also long recognized that it might make sense to adapt another date for Victims of Communism Day, if it turns out that some other date can attract a broader consensus behind it. The best should not be the enemy of the good.
As detailed in my May 1 post from 2019, November 7 is probably the best such alternative, and over time it has begun to attract considerable support. Unlike May 1, this choice is unlikely to be contested by trade unionists and other devotees of the pre-Communist May 1 holiday. While I remain unpersuaded by their objections on substantive grounds, pragmatic considerations suggest that an alternative date is worth considering, if it can thereby attract broader support.
The November 7 option is not without its own downsides. From an American standpoint, one obvious one is that it will often fall close to election day. On such occasions, a November 7 Victims of Communism Day might not attract as much attention as it deserves, because many will - understandably - be focused on electoral politics instead. Nonetheless, November 7 remains the best available alternative to May 1; or at least the best I am aware of.
For that reason, I am once again doing a Victims of Communism Day post on November 7, in addition to the one I do on May 1. If November 7 attracts more support, I may eventually switch to that date exclusively. But, for now, I reserve the options of returning to an exclusive focus on May 1, doing annual posts on both days, or switching to some third option should a good one arise.
In addition to its growing popularity, November 7 is a worthy alternative because it is the anniversary of the day that the very first communist regime was established in Russia. All subsequent communist regimes were at least in large part inspired by it, and based many of their institutions and policies on the Soviet model.
Having explained why November 7 is worthy of consideration as an alternative date, it only remains to remind readers of the more general case for having a Victims of Communism Day. The following is adopted from this year's May 1 Victims of Communism Day post, and some of its predecessors:
The Black Book of Communism estimates the total at 80 to 100 million dead, greater than that caused by all other twentieth century tyrannies combined. We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the twentieth century's other great totalitarian tyranny.
Our comparative neglect of communist crimes has serious costs. Victims of Communism Day can serve the dual purpose of appropriately commemorating the millions of victims, and diminishing the likelihood that such atrocities will recur. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day and other similar events promote awareness of the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, and radical nationalism, so Victims of Communism Day can increase awareness of the dangers of left-wing forms of totalitarianism, and government domination of the economy and civil society.
While communism is most closely associated with Russia, where the first communist regime was established, it had comparably horrendous effects in other nations around the world. The highest death toll for a communist regime was not in Russia, but in China. Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward was likely the biggest episode of mass murder in the entire history of the world.
November 7, 2017 was the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, which led to the establishment of the first-ever communist regime. On that day, I put up a post outlining some of the lessons to be learned from a century of experience with communism. The post explains why the lion's share of the horrors perpetrated by communist regimes were inherent flaws of the system. For the most part, they cannot be ascribed to circumstantial factors, such as flawed individual leaders, peculiarities of Russian and Chinese culture, or the absence of democracy. Some of these other factors, especially the last, probably did make the situation worse than it might have been otherwise. But, for reasons I explained in the same post, some form of dictatorship is virtually inevitable in a socialist economic system where the government controls all or nearly all of the economy.
While the influence of communist ideology has declined since its mid-twentieth century peak, it is far from dead. Largely unreformed communist regimes remain in power in Cuba and North Korea. In Venezuela, the Marxist government's policies have resulted in political repression, the starvation of children, and a massive refugee crisis - the biggest in the history of the Western hemisphere. The removal of President Nicolas Maduro has so far done little to change the nature of that regime.
In Russia, the authoritarian regime of former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin has embarked on a wholesale whitewashing of communism's historical record. Putin's brutal and indefensible invasion of Ukraine owes more to Russian nationalist ideology than communism. But it is nonetheless fed in part by his desire to recapture the supposed power and glory of the Soviet Union, and his long-held belief that the collapse of the USSR was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century." It is also telling that most communists in Russia and elsewhere have joined with nationalists in backing Putin's line on the war.
In China, the Communist Party remains in power (albeit after having abandoned many of its previous socialist economic policies), and has recently become less tolerant of criticism of the mass murders of the Mao era (part of a more general turn towards greater repression).
China's horrific repression of the Uighur minority is reminiscent of similar policies under Mao and Stalin, though it has not - so far - reached the level of actual mass murder. But imprisoning over 1 million people in horrific concentration camps is more than bad enough.
Far-left support for Hamas since the horrific October 7, 2023 terrorist attack is yet another reminder of the inherently evil nature of communist ideology. Backing terrorism is part of a long history of support for repression and mass murder. Not all extreme socialists of the type who support Hamas are communists. But the latter are a subset of the former.
In the West, the popularity of "democratic socialism" in some quarters is a sign that many have failed to learn the lessons of the communist experience. Democratic socialism has many of the same flaws as its authoritarian counterpart, and - as the Venezuelan case shows - is unlikely to stay democratic for long, if implemented. Ironically, in their support for sweeping government control of the economy, democratic socialists have much in common with MAGA nationalists.
Victims of Communism Day is also a good time to remember our duty to help those victims. Among other things, it is unjust to deport migrants fleeing oppressive Marxist dictatorships, like those Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, as the Trump Administration seeks to do to hundreds of thousands who entered the US legally under the CNVH program. This year, Trump ramped up efforts to deport Cubans back to their communist oppressors.If some on the left tend to ignore the evils of socialism, many on the nationalist right have been exacerbating the plight of its victims.
In sum, we need Victims of Communism Day because we have never given sufficient recognition to the victims of the modern world's most murderous ideology or come close to fully appreciating the lessons of this awful era in world history. In addition, that ideology, and variants thereof, still have a substantial number of adherents in many parts of the world, and still retains considerable intellectual respectability even among many who do not actually endorse it. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day serves as a bulwark against the reemergence of fascism, so this day of observance can help guard against the only ideology with an even greater number of victims.
The old provision dated back to 1868, and read, "The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for their common defense." The new, which passed 71%-29%, will read:
(a) The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms, for:
(1) Their common defense;
(2) Lawful hunting and recreational use; and
(3) Any other lawful purpose.
(b) The right to keep and bear arms under subsection (a) of this section includes without limitation the possession and use of:
(1) Ammunition;
(2) Firearm accessories; and
(3) Firearm components.
(c) The right to keep and bear arms under subsection (a) of this section is a natural, fundamental, and individual right that shall not be infringed.
I was just listening to a great talk about taboo words by Steven Pinker at the FIRE Soapbox conference, and particularly liked this example of "emphatic swearing":
The taboo word is often used to draw a listener's attention, emphasizing the following noun or adjective. For example: "This is really, really fucking brilliant" [that's a reference to the Bono incident that led to FCC action -EV] or "He thinks he's a fucking scoutmaster, Rip Van fuckin' Winkle."
When emphatic and idiomatic swearing is overused, it can lead to a form of English sometimes referred to as "fuck patois." This is a style where swearing is so pervasive that it becomes almost a defining feature of the language. An example of this can be found in the story of a soldier who says, "I come home to my fucking house after three fucking years in the fucking war, and what do I fucking well find? My wife in bed, engaged in illicit sexual relations with a male!"
I think there's more going on in the soldier story than just fuck patois—indeed, what makes it emphatic might be the absence of "fuck" in the closing phrase—but in any event it's pretty funny.
Note that the term "fuck patois" is often credited to Tom Wolfe.
From Magistrate Judge Kenneth Schroeder's Report and Recommendation Sept. 22 in Doyle v. James, affirmed Wednesday by Judge John Sinatra (W.D.N.Y.), plaintiff's allegations:
Plaintiff Paul Doyle ("Doyle") is the Senior Pastor at Cornerstone Church in Batavia, New York. Cornerstone is a small, rural church with a history of service and community outreach. Cornerstone has worked to build relationships with communities of color and was aggressive in their assistance to victims of the mass shooting in Buffalo.
Plaintiff Clay Clark ("Clark") is the owner and operator of The Thrive Time Show, a highly successful business podcast. Clark has twice been named the US Small Business Association Entrepreneur of the Year and is the recipient of other business awards.
"ReAwaken America" is a conservative political movement that hosts events throughout the country. The ReAwaken America Tour ("the Tour") was scheduled to host an event in Rochester, New York on August 12, 2022 at the Main Street Armory. However, after community members and local politicians spoke out against the event, the Armory cancelled it.
The Tour then reached out to Doyle to see if Cornerstone would be willing to host the event. Doyle met with groups from Rochester to try to understand their concerns and concluded that "the Tour was not what was being portrayed in the media and by government officials." Doyle thus agreed to host the event at Cornerstone "due to his strong belief that free speech should not be restricted and those who attempt to exercise it should not be intimidated, particularly by government officials." The event was scheduled for August 11-13, 2022.
On August 3, 2022, New York Attorney General Letitia James sent a letter addressed to Clark and General Michael Flynn—a co-organizer of the Tour—to Doyle's home address "c/o Cornerstone Church." Plaintiffs allege that the letter was "nothing less than an attempt to covertly intimidate and threaten the Plaintiffs into shutting down the event."
James's letter stated, in part:
As New York's top law enforcement officer, I have significant concerns that the ReAwaken America Tour's upcoming event at the Cornerstone Church in Batavia, New York on August 12 and 13 could spur extremist or racially motivated violence. These concerns center around the event's proposed dates, which coincide with the five-year anniversary of the deadly Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, and past extremist statements made by yourselves and the other featured speakers on the tour.
The Florida Legislature recently enacted a new law that allows state officials to designate certain groups "domestic terrorist organizations" (DTOs). Soon thereafter, Florida's Governor and Cabinet designated Plaintiffs CAIR-Foundation, Inc., and CAIR-Florida, Inc., as DTOs. The designations take effect on November 5, 2026. At that point, Plaintiffs and others supporting them will be subject to criminal and civil penalties for certain activities. In this action, Plaintiffs contend the new law (or parts of it) and the DTO designations violate their First Amendment freedoms and due process protections….
This is Florida's second effort to designate Plaintiffs as terrorist organizations. Previously, the Governor issued an executive order that designated Plaintiffs as terrorist organizations and prevented them "or 'any person known to have provided material support or resources' to [them] 'from receiving any contract, employment, funds, or other benefit or privilege' from executive or cabinet agencies or from any county or municipality of the state." This court preliminarily enjoined enforcement of the executive order, finding it likely violates the First Amendment. [See this post on that decision. -EV] The Governor appealed, and the appeal remains pending.
After this court's decision, the Florida Legislature enacted HBs 1471 and 1473, which created a DTO designation process. The Florida Department of Law Enforcement later promulgated Emergency Rule 11RER26-8, which implements this legislation. Pursuant to the legislation and rule, Florida's Chief of Domestic Security issued a written notice of intent to designate Plaintiffs as DTOs…. [T]he Governor and Cabinet held a public meeting, at which they approved the designations….
{[U]nder [Fla. Stat.] § 775.33(3), "[a] person who knowingly provides material support or resources to a designated … domestic terrorist organization" commits a first-degree felony. See also Fla. Stat. § 775.33(1)(d) ("'Material support or resources' means any property, tangible or intangible, or service, including currency or monetary instruments or financial securities, financial services, lodging, training, expert advice or assistance, safe houses, false documentation or identification, communications equipment, facilities, weapons, lethal substances, explosives, personnel, or transportation. The term does not include medicine or religious materials.").}
[This post is co-authored with Professor Seth Barrett Tillman.]
On November 3, 2026, U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (Minnesota-Democratic Party) was elected Governor of Minnesota. It is expected that, at some point, she will resign her U.S. senate seat, then take up the governor's position, and subsequently make a temporary appointment to fill her then-vacant senate seat. That dance of musical chairs happens from time-to-time. But some have also reported that Klobuchar must resign her senate seat. CBS News quoted political science professor David Schultz (Hamline University, Minnesota): "At some point she's going to have to step down as U.S. [S]enator." That might be true pragmatically—as a matter of politics. And sometimes, federal and state constitutional and statutory law bar dual-officeholding. Sometimes, but not all the time. In these circumstances, the law does not expressly bar dual-officeholding where, as here, the two positions are U.S. Senator and Minnesota Governor.
The U.S. Constitution's Incompatibility Clause (Article I, Section 6, Clause 2) bars U.S. Senators and Representatives from concurrently holding certain other federal positions. The position of governor is a state, not a federal position. So, this provision has no application here.
The Minnesota State Constitution has a similar provision (Article IV, Section 5). That provision bars Minnesota's state (not U.S.) Senators and Representatives from holding other state and federal positions. Klobuchar is not a state Senator; rather, she is a U.S. Senator. So, this provision has no application here.
The federal double-dipping statute, 5 United States Code Section 5533 bars drawing two salaries for two positions, where both positions are at the federal level. It has no application to state positions, e.g., governor. Moreover, it does not bar actual dual-officeholding; rather, it bars receiving two streams of full-time compensation or salary. Again, this provision has no application here.
Beyond these express provisions of positive law relating to incompatible offices, there are two common law doctrines, announced by state and federal courts, relating to incompatible offices. The more narrow doctrine prohibits one person holding two positions where one position supervises the other position or determines its compensation. Here, the two positions—U.S. Senator and Minnesota Governor—neither supervise one another, nor determine one another's compensation. So, this doctrine has no application here.
Finally, there is a more expansive common law doctrine relating to incompatible offices. This doctrine holds that, where as a practical matter, one person cannot carry out both sets of duties connected to two positions, the two positions are incompatible. It might be argued that a governor, particularly in an emergency, must reside within her state, and that a U.S. Senator, should generally be on hand, at short notice, to carry out Senate business. Given the physical distance between Minnesota and Washington, D.C., it is not entirely frivolous to suggest that this doctrine might act as a bar here. But the bar here is not distance, it is whether one can practically carry out both sets of duties. Governors frequently leave their states for short periods of time—even for vacations. That's allowable as long as they are within reach by telephone or video link, and as long as they can return quickly in the event of an emergency. Likewise, the U.S. Senate can choose to accommodate a Senator with responsibilities distant from D.C.—the Senate could allow participation in debate by video link, and it could allow remote voting, as long as the votes are reasonably authenticated. In other words, it is not a slam dunk that this expansive doctrine should apply on these facts, particularly given that this doctrine is merely a judicial creation lacking any foundation in both the U.S. Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. More generally, we should not allow ad hoc judicial creations to supersede democratic elections and add to the qualifications and incompatibilities expressly set out in positive law.
Having one person hold two government positions—including state governor and U.S. Senator—is not a particularly good result. But the fact that a result is bad does not mean, without more, that that result is barred by our law. Not every bad thing is illegal; not every bad result is unconstitutional. And pretending the U.S. Constitution and Minnesota Constitution bar what we think is bad today elevates our intuition into legal duties only by undermining what the legal system actually commands. And if today, our intuition is vindicated, we might do well to remember that tomorrow, it might be someone else's intuition being vindicated and in ways that we might come to regret.
Among those who have considered this issue, I expect that many (and, perhaps, most) believe, as Professor Shultz believes, that Klobuchar must resign her senate seat before she becomes Minnesota's governor. That is, of course, the received wisdom. And that should tell you all you need to know about . . . the received wisdom.
[Seth Barrett Tillman, Associate Professor. Maynooth University School of Law and Criminology, Ireland. Scoil an Dlí agus na Coireolaíochta Ollscoil Mhá Nuad.]
Sign up here to receive all of the new Volokh Conspiracy posts in a daily e-mail.
The All-Argentina Issue is Here
New from Reason: a look into what Javier Milei
has accomplished and what it will take to make the most of Argentina’s window for real change. Out now
for subscribers.
