A Comprehensive Historical Review of the Comstock Act

by | Sep 27, 2024 | SOS | 0 comments

What you Need to Know about Comstock and How it Affects You Today

10 Minutes Play

From Victorian Censorship to Modern-Day Revival

Introduction

The Comstock Act, officially titled “An Act for the Suppression of Trade in, and Circulation of, Obscene Literature and Articles of Immoral Use,” was enacted in 1873 amidst a fervent anti-vice movement spearheaded by Anthony Comstock. (See our article Who is Anthony Comstock and How Is He Fucking Up Your Life?)

This federal statute was designed to curb what was perceived as escalating immorality in post-Civil War America by criminalizing the distribution of “obscene” materials through the U.S. postal service. Encompassing literature, images, and devices related to contraception and abortion, the Comstock Act effectively suppressed discussion and access to birth control and abortion-related information.

However, over the decades, the Act has been used both a tool for censorship and a battleground for debates over free speech and reproductive rights, evolving significantly in its interpretation and application.

Intended Purpose of the Comstock Act

When the Comstock Act was introduced, its primary objective was promoted as a law to target a broad spectrum of obscenity, including:

  1. Sexually Explicit Materials: These were viewed as potential catalysts for immoral behavior and threats to public morals.
  2. Contraceptives and Abortifacients: Any item or information intended to prevent conception or terminate a pregnancy was classified under obscenity, irrespective of its medical value.

Anthony Comstock, the Act’s namesake, was a fervent advocate for sexual purity, believing that controlling access to sexual materials was crucial for maintaining social order. The law granted broad powers to postal inspectors to seize and ban any content or items they deemed “obscene,” making it a powerful tool, for censorship that extended beyond erotica to include works on reproductive health and free speech in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Early Enforcement and Abuse

From its inception, the Comstock Act became a potent instrument for censorship, delivering more than its stated purpose of limiting the distribution of explicit materials. It became a vehicle for suppressing not just pornography but also political speech and public health information, especially regarding contraception and abortion.

The act’s language included anything related to preventing conception or inducing abortion under the broad category of obscenity, regardless of its medical or educational intent. As a result, healthcare providers, activists, and those advocating for sexual education were frequently targeted under this statute.

A potent example of the early misuse of the Comstock Act to suppress reproductive rights and women’s health advocacy was the prosecution of prominent figures like Margaret Sanger and Mary Ware Dennett, both advocates for birth control. However, to their credit and the future benefit of society, these women were prepared to face the legal penalties to spotlight the overreach of Comstockery. This was a term coined by George Bernard Shaw to mock the moral extremism and excessive censorship advocated by Comstock and his allies, ably reflecting growing public opposition to the Act’s overreach.

Key Legal Challenges and Resistance

Despite its expansive language, the Comstock Act began to face significant judicial challenges in the early 20th century, particularly from feminist groups and advocates for free speech. These individuals and organizations sought to challenge the statute’s broad definitions and disproportionate enforcement. This led to notable legal battles that gradually chipped away at the Act’s power, leading courts to recognize the law’s overreach and begin to impose limitations on its application.

A landmark case in 1936, United States v. One Package, saw the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rule that contraceptives sent by doctors for medical purposes were not inherently obscene. This ruling established a crucial medical exemption, acknowledging contraception as a legitimate aspect of healthcare rather than being subject to the Comstock Act’s obscenity restrictions.

Another pivotal case, United States v. Dennett (1930), involved the distribution of sex education materials. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mary Ware Dennett, determining that her pamphlet on sexual health was educational and not obscene. This decision was a significant victory for free speech and reproductive education. It demonstrated judicial willingness to interpret the Comstock Act more narrowly.

Over time, public opinion shifted as the Act’s enforcement was increasingly viewed as an infringement on free speech and privacy. This shift led to a decline in the Act’s rigorous enforcement, with courts becoming more critical of its application to legitimate medical and educational materials.

Decline of Comstockery and Its Dormancy

By the mid-20th century, the Comstock Act had largely fallen out of active use. Legal interpretations restricted its scope to genuinely obscene materials, excluding contraception and abortion in many instances. However, the law remained on the books, serving as a relic from a bygone era of stringent moral regulation. “Comstockery,” a term coined by George Bernard Shaw, had become synonymous with overreaching censorship and reflected a broader societal move towards greater personal freedoms and reproductive rights.

Revival After Roe v. Wade

Unfortunately, the Comstock Act has experienced a significant resurgence in recent years, particularly following the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision in 2022, which overturned Roe v. Wade. This pivotal ruling ignited a new wave of anti-abortion activism, with revivalists seeking to reframe the statute as a tool for imposing a nationwide abortion ban.

Modern-Day Use and Interpretation

Conservative legal strategists and anti-abortion advocates who seek to reinterpret the Comstock Act as a national abortion ban, argue that the Comstock Act’s prohibition on mailing abortion-inducing drugs or devices provides a federal mechanism to restrict abortion access across the United States. This interpretation posits that the Act not only bars the distribution of such items but implicitly supports a nationwide abortion ban, transcending state laws where abortion remains legal.

Additionally, politicians and conservative legal scholars are leveraging the Comstock Act to target healthcare providers, suggesting that doctors who prescribe or mail abortion medications could be prosecuted under the Act, even in states where abortion is permitted. This strategy represents a strategic shift, aiming to circumvent state-level protections by enforcing federal restrictions through an antiquated statute.

Opposition and Criticism

Opponents of this revivalist interpretation argue that the Comstock Act was never intended to serve as a comprehensive prohibition on abortion or reproductive healthcare. Historically, the Act focused on obscenity rather than healthcare, and its early enforcement was inconsistent and often overreaching. Critics assert that using the Comstock Act to enforce a modern-day abortion ban disregards decades of legal precedent that balanced obscenity restrictions with the protection of legitimate healthcare and free speech.

Furthermore, this revival is seen as an attempt to bypass democratic legislative processes. Revivalists are invoking a Victorian-era law to enforce an agenda that is out of step with contemporary public opinion. Polls consistently indicate that a majority of Americans support abortion access under certain circumstances. This approach raises significant concerns about the democratic legitimacy and relevance of resurrecting an outdated statute to address modern reproductive rights issues.

Conclusion: A New Battle Over Old Laws

The Comstock Act has evolved from its origins as a tool for suppressing obscenity and promoting moral purity to a contentious legal battleground in the post-Roe era. Revivalists seek to repurpose the Act to enforce a nationwide abortion ban, facing robust opposition from those who view this move as an abuse of a statute originally intended for censorship, not reproductive healthcare regulation.

This ongoing struggle underscores broader tensions surrounding democracy, bodily autonomy, and the rule of law. The legacy of “Comstockery”—a symbol of censorship and repression—continues to influence modern legal interpretations of free speech and reproductive rights.

As courts grapple with the application of a 19th-century law to 21st-century issues, the future of abortion rights and reproductive freedom in the United States remains uncertain, highlighting the enduring impact of the Comstock Act on American society and law.

Please read this article in conjunction with our article Who is Anthony Comstock and How Is He Fucking Up Your Life? for an interesting romp through history and the cast of characters that have shaped the Comstock Act, both for and against it. That article covers many things not included in this article and is crucial reading if you really want to understand Comstockery and its relevance to today.

Who is Anthony Comstock? And How Is He Fucking Up Your Life

by | Sep 27, 2024 | SOS | 0 comments

Who is Anthony Comstock and Why Should You Care

7 Minutes Play

 

Big Brother in the Bedroom: The Comstock Act Returns

 

If you knew how the Comstock Act has been used to police and suppress both freedom of speech and people’s private lives, including their intimate lives, you would be shocked. Read on.

Anthony Comstock was a 19th-century Civil War veteran who became obsessed with sex, pornography, and even his own masturbation habits, which disturbed him, so he went on a crusade to rid the world of these “vices.”

This is the first of many peculiar events you will read about in this article. Much like many individuals we know or have heard of—politicians, business leaders, community leaders, religious figures, and influencers of all kinds—who have their own flaws, but they choose not to get rid of these shortcomings. Instead, they embark on a crusade to eradicate these flaws in others.Comstock believed that illicit sex was destroying the nation. He found wealthy patrons in the YMCA, which was backed by New York millionaires, and set out to transform the meaning of obscenity in New York before taking the crusade nationally. In many ways, we’re still living with the legacy of that crusade today.

One of Comstock’s backers from that time was Samuel Colgate of Colgate toothpaste, who marketed Vaseline as a contraceptive. while funding Comstock’s obscenity campaign. (Note Well, Vaseline is not a contraceptive—do not try it!), There was a lot of hypocrisy among the wealthy involved in this campaign, which is not so unusual in this day and age either.

the 1873 Comstock Act was an anti-vice law that criminalized transmitting any obscene literature and articles of immoral use via U.S. mail, including items designed for the prevention of conception or the procuring of abortion. Due to its very loose wording, It morphed into something a lot more disturbing and intrusive. However, until recently, the law had been relegated to the dustbin of history although not stricken out. But some ultra right-wing lawyers and judges, are now trying to revive it, and their efforts are having some success.

Silencing Speech, Controlling Women’s rights: Comstock in the 21st Century

If you knew how the Comstock Act was used to police and suppress both freedom of speech and people’s private lives, including their intimate lives, you would be shocked. Unfortunately, through Agenda 47, Project 2025, the right-wing faction of the Supreme Court, as well as other lower court judges, lawyers, and ultra-conservative politicians, you may soon have the unwelcome experience of finding out what it was like to live under the Comstock Act yourself. This is especially true if you haven’t already felt its impact through the overturning of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent attack on women’s rights.

Woodhull’s Bold Move: How Exposing Hypocrisy Paved the Way for Comstock’s Revenge

It all started with Victoria Woodhull, a prominent figure in the suffrage movement, and how her objection to the sexual double standards of the day led to the disastrous passage of the Comstock Act, which is still in force today.

Victoria Woodhull, along with her sister Tennessee Claflin, published a newspaper called Woodhull & Claflin’s Weekly. This publication, established in 1870, was one of the first newspapers in the United States to be published by women. It covered a range of topics including women’s right to vote, political reform, and social issues.

Woodhull decided to expose the affair of preacher Henry Ward Beecher with one of his parishioners, in her newspaper, showcasing the hypocrisy of devout men.

Comstock seized on this opportunity, prosecuting her under existing obscenity statutes, to gain publicity for himself. However, the case against her newspaper failed because the judge held the law didn’t apply to the press. This win proved to be a double-edged sword, and the loss gave Comstock the momentum to push for a more robust obscenity law, which led to the enactment of the Comstock Act a tougher obscenity law, aptly named after him.

Side Note from the Editor

(If Woodhull thought that sexual double standards, sexual abuse and the hypocrisy of devout men was rife in 1870, she would have a field day in 2024. With so many scandals to write about, her 16-page newspaper would probably be 10 times larger.)

Books on Trial: How the Comstock Act Targeted Literature and Knowledge, Censoring Words, Silencing Minds

Beyond targeting sexual and reproductive content, the Comstock Act was slowly used to police other kinds of speech, books for instance. For example, some of the most famous works of literature such as The Decameron by Giovanni Boccaccio and The Canterbury Tales by Geoffrey Chaucer were banned under the Comstock Act which aimed to suppress the distribution of “obscene” literature, and these classic works were among those deemed inappropriate and banned from being mailed in the United States.

Medical textbooks were also targeted under the Comstock Act because they often contained information about contraception, abortion, and sexual health which were considered “obscene” under the Act. This included educational content that provided knowledge about reproductive health and as a result, medical textbooks that discussed these topics were banned from being mailed, significantly hindering the dissemination of important medical knowledge

Does this remind you of what’s happening in some states today For example, recently, a variety of books have been banned from school libraries in Florida. These include:

  • Books with LGBTQ+ themes: Titles that explore LGBTQ+ identities and experiences are frequently targeted.
  • Books addressing racial issues: Works that discuss racism, historical injustices, and the experiences of marginalized communities have also been removed.
  • Books with sexual content: Texts that contain sexual education or explicit content have been banned.
  • Books considered politically controversial: Titles that present viewpoints or historical perspectives that are seen as politically contentious have been targeted. For example, the book “Flamer” by Mike Curato was removed from all school libraries.

In fact, a total of 386 books were removed from school libraries in Florida last year.

Prosecuting the Prosecutors: Echoes of Comstock in Trump’s Legal Battles

Here’s another Interesting reminder from the past for those that say, “these things can’t happen”. Sometimes members of vice-suppression societies, who were supposed to enforce these obscenity laws, would get arrested for merely acknowledging these obscene materials existed when writing their fundraising reports. Merely writing about obscene material was deemed to be obscene itself. The enforcement of the law became chaotic and far-reaching.

This reminds me of Trumps threat to prosecute every lawyer who prosecuted him under State and Federal laws if he becomes President again and the move by Judge Aileen Cannon to dismiss Trumps classified documents case on the basis that the office of Special Counsel is unconstitutional although the role of special counsel in the U.S. has a long history, dating back to the 1800s.

It should be noted, Anthony Comstock did acknowledge a health exemption was inferred in the Comstock Act in 1915, shortly before he died. He said he didn’t want to target doctors protecting patients’ lives, only “quacks.” However, today’s anti-choice movement has interpreted the Act much more literally, resisting even life and health exemptions.

Corruption in the Enforcement of Comstock

What is of most interest to us these days, is to see how in the US, an extreme, loosely defined law could be sold to the people and legislators as an anti-vice law, but once enacted lead to something completely contrary to what main stream society thought it meant.

It got worse because the enforcement of Comstock became corrupted, particularly in the role of anti-vice societies that sprung up in the aftermath of the enactment of the Comstock Act . You could say, a strange public-private partnership evolved with extremist supporters of the act and others who could see financial benefit in supporting it, came into play.

The societies for the suppression of vice were private citizens who worked with people like Anthony Comstock to bait and entrap suspects by posing as family members or even as women seeking contraception or abortion. If the suspect fell for the ploy and agreed to help them, they would arrest them and claim the financial reward being offered. Comstock and others were incentivized to make these arrests because they received a percentage of the fines imposed.

Comstock has figured prominently in the mifepristone litigation, a case concerning medication abortion where one of the arguments was that sending abortion pills through the mail violated the law.

Comstock has been a focus of Project 2025, which has urged enforcement of the law under a potential future Trump administration. While reviving this “zombie” law already seems dystopian, it becomes much worse when you look at its history and how it was enforced.

Resistance to the Comstock Act

However, Comstock was not without its detractors, especially from suffragists and early feminists. Their resistance began almost immediately, and as Comstock prosecutions became more extreme, it provoked mockery and protest.

In 1905, George Bernard Shaw, the renowned playwright, played a major role in moving public opinion against Comstock when he coined the mocking term, Comstockery, to expose its excesses. Shaw created this ridiculing nickname to describe the prudish and censorious attitudes of Anthony Comstock, in response to Comstock’s prudish objection to his play, Mrs. Warren’s Profession.

Comstockery became the battle cry of suffragists and civil libertarians who increasingly argued that the law wasn’t just suppressing sexual freedom, but also political speech, and they used civil disobedience to make their voices heard.

Comstock’s Legacy and the Modern-Day Implications

Taking all the above into account, we have to ask the question, what does the history of Comstockery tell us about the revival of Comstock in today’s legal battles, particularly in the context of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization?

Professor Reva Siegel

Here I can do no better than to quote Professor Reva Siegel the Nicholas deB. Katzenbach Professor of Law at Yale Law School. Her work primarily focuses on constitutional law, legal history, and issues of law and inequality. She explores how courts interact with representative government and popular movements in interpreting the Constitution.

She said, in a recent podcast called Strict Scrutiny “It is outrageous to read the narrow focus on statutes in the Dobbs decision which rely on a narrow focus of old statutes that were enacted at a time when women and people of color couldn’t participate in the electoral process. This exclusionary narrative ignores the voices of those who were denied participation in shaping our history. The revival of Comstock, which failed to stop progress even in its own time, feels deeply misaligned with the broader history of our constitutional democracy.”

I agree and I hasten to point out that many decisions that have been handed down in the last hundred years that do not support undemocratic processes, or which supported women’s rights to choose the best health care options in their situation were ignored.

I hope this article about a law that should have been stricken out and forgotten long ago but is still on the books has awakened you to the danger that could be revived and given a new life in a future administration that uses Project 2025 as it’s guidebook.

I will give the last word to the Co-host of Strict Security who said “: The current efforts to revive Comstock and apply it to police intimate lives are fundamentally at odds with modern constitutional interpretations, especially regarding free speech and reproductive rights. This history shows just how dangerous it would be to return to the world these revivalists envision”.

The Fragile State of Democracy: Preserving Our Hard-Won Freedoms

by | Sep 26, 2024 | SOS | 0 comments

Why the Next Election is the Most Important in US History

9 minutes Play

Our First Editorial

Hello and Welcome to SOS Democracy in Danger

You may be wondering why we started this democracy news website?  Some will say it is just another anti Trump, anti MAGA mouthpiece. And we accept it may look like that because of the timing of our launch. But timing is crucial; it can mean the difference between helping to shape the conversation or being left out of it. With the right timing, you’re in the game; without it, you’re just a spectator.

We feel Democracy and Democratic Ideals are being slowly eroded not just in America but in many democratic countries. Sometimes it is an outright attack but often it is covert and generally people don’t realize what they are putting at risk, or worse, what they could easily lose, almost by accident.

Democracy is a system we’ve cherished for generations, but it wasn’t created as it is today, it evolved over centuries. We may think it is permanently baked into our culture, but it is a lot more fragile than we realize. While it has provided a foundation for freedom and prosperity, its long-term future is not guaranteed. As Winston Churchill famously remarked, “Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those other forms that have been tried.”

Democracy is on a slippery slope

We must speak out now, before the next presidential election, because our concern is democracy is on a slippery slope in America. The next presidential election is not just about who will be President for the next 4 years, it is a vote for, a choice, to continue to evolve as a democracy or to change lanes and head towards authoritarianism.

This election is doubly important because of America’s role as the leader of the democratic world. If America changes direction, that will put democracy around the world in danger.

History is littered with examples of how nations slid into authoritarianism, some recovered like Germany, Italy and Japan after World War two, but many have not.

It is understandable that when things are not going well, a strong man looks like a solution. But what people don’t see or don’t want to see, is what they lose under such a system. The first thing is freedom. You may think if you don’t like the way things turn out, you can just vote them out. But strong men don’t let go of power so easily. Ask the Russians, ask the Iranians, the North Koreans and the Chinese if they can vote out their strong men?

This paradox highlights the fact that while democracy is imperfect, it remains the best system we have for ensuring individual liberties and fair governance. Today, however, emerging threats challenge the very fabric of our democratic institutions, and it’s imperative that we recognize and address them before it’s too late.

We are not professional Journalists

My friends and I are not political commentators and it’s not something we ever imagined we would do. Our major contribution to democracy has been to vote.

One of the things we enjoy is debating, which sometimes leads to heated discussions on politics, religion, philosophy, history, society and even recipes. You’d be surprised how heated a discussion over a recipe can be.

But the one thing we agree on is, democracy is in danger and is on a downward slide, not just in America but around the world.

Democracy is an ideal, a concept, a way of life. No one can force a country to be democratic because that wouldn’t be democratic. It would be like building a house on quicksand, it wouldn’t survive the first earthquake.

Which makes us wonder, what is our democracy built on?

The Inherent Value of Democracy

At its core, democracy is built upon principles that empower individuals and protect their rights.

  • Free and fair elections ensure that government officials are accountable to the people
  • The rule of law guarantees that everyone is subject to the same laws, preventing abuses of power.
  • Protection of individual rights safeguards freedoms such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, allowing a diverse society to flourish.

 

These principles were not established overnight. Throughout history, countless individuals have fought, and even sacrificed their lives, to achieve and maintain democratic systems.

In America, from the American Revolution to the civil rights movement, the journey toward a more inclusive and representative democracy has been arduous. Each struggle has reinforced the importance of vigilance in protecting the rights and freedoms we hold dear.

Emerging Threats to Democratic Institutions

Despite the progress made, several developments raise concerns about the future of our democracy. These threats, if left unchecked, could undermine the institutions that have long safeguarded our freedoms

Concerns Over Project 2025

Project 2025: is a strategic plan prepared by The Heritage Foundation, but many of its authors served in the first Trump administration and are likely candidates for a second one, if he is elected again. It aims to fundamentally reshape the federal government. While the authors and their supporters argue it’s designed to streamline government functions, many worry that it could concentrate power in ways that resemble authoritarian regimes. Some examples include:

Weaponization of Justice: One of the most alarming aspects is the potential for the justice system to be used against political opponents. If the mechanisms of justice become tools for silencing dissent, it undermines the rule of law and erodes public trust in legal institutions. Such a shift could lead to a climate of fear, where individuals are hesitant to express opposing views. That will stifle open discussion which is so essential for a healthy democracy. Like this article for instance and this website.

2. Replacing Impartial Civil Servants with Loyalists
The Role of Civil Servants: A competent, neutral bureaucracy is the backbone of any functioning democracy. Civil servants are expected to implement policies and provide services impartially, regardless of which political party is in power. Their expertise and continuity ensure that government operations remain stable and effective.

Potential Consequences of Schedule F, Agenda 47 and Project 2025: Proposals to replace long-standing civil servants with individuals who pledge personal loyalty to a particular leader threaten this neutrality. Such actions could lead to a bureaucracy filled with sycophants rather than experts, compromising the quality of governance. Decisions could, and probably would, be made based on political considerations rather than the public interest, leading to inefficiencies and a loss of public trust.

Editor's Note

Schedule F was an executive order issued by President Trump in October 2020, shortly before he left office.

The official title of the executive order was “Executive Order 13957: Creating Schedule F In The Excepted Service.” This order would have created a new category of federal employees called “Schedule F” for positions of a confidential, policy-determining, policy-making, or policy-advocating character.

The order would have made it easier to hire and fire employees in these positions, potentially affecting tens of thousands of career civil servants by reclassifying them into this new category. This would have effectively stripped them of many civil service protections.

However, it’s important to note that this executive order was revoked by President Biden in January 2021, shortly after he took office. As of now, Schedule F is not in effect but Donald Trump has pledged to reinstate it and this is supported by the Heritage Foundation in Project 2025, a playbook for the first 180 days of the new Administration.

3. Undermining Regulatory Agencies – two examples out of many

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

  • Expertise Matters: The EPA plays a crucial role in safeguarding our environment. Its staff includes scientists and specialists who understand the complexities of environmental protection. Their work ensures that policies are grounded in science and aimed at preserving natural resources for future generations.
  • Risk of Politicization: If the EPA becomes a tool for political agendas, ignoring scientific evidence, it could lead to environmental degradation. Policies might favor short-term economic gains over long-term sustainability, harming ecosystems and public health.

Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC):

  • Market Integrity: The SEC is responsible for regulating the financial markets, ensuring transparency, and protecting investors. Its impartial oversight is vital for maintaining confidence in the economic system.
  • Impartial Regulation: Concerns arise when the SEC’s neutrality is threatened. If regulations are adjusted to favor certain businesses or political interests, it would lead to unfair practices and economic instability. Such a shift undermines the principles of a free market and can have widespread negative effects on the economy.

Erosion of Individual Rights

Individual rights are the cornerstone of democracy, allowing citizens to make personal choices without undue government interference. Recent developments suggest that some of these rights are at risk.

      • Women’s Reproductive Rights
        • Recent Developments: There has been a significant rollback of abortion rights in several states, limiting women’s access to reproductive healthcare. These changes not only affect individual autonomy but also set a precedent for government overreach into personal decisions.
        • Broader Impact: If authoritarian trends continue, other personal freedoms could be eroded. The restriction of one right often leads to the curtailment of others, affecting various aspects of daily life, from privacy to freedom of expression. See https://sosdemocracyindanger.com/gops-wake-up-call-for-women/

        The Danger of Authoritarian Rhetoric

        The health of a democracy is closely tied to the tone set by its leaders. Rhetoric that undermines democratic norms can have far-reaching consequences.

        • Alarming Statements from Leaders
          • Respecting Democratic Norms: Leaders have a responsibility to uphold the principles of democracy, including respecting electoral processes and encouraging peaceful transitions of power. When leaders question the legitimacy of elections without evidence or suggest that only certain outcomes are acceptable, it weakens public confidence in the system.
          • Condemning Violence: Suggesting that unfavorable electoral outcomes could lead to unrest or violence is deeply concerning. Such rhetoric can incite division and potentially lead to actual conflicts, disrupting the societal harmony that democracy relies upon. See MAGA Ringleader Reveals Authoritarian Ambitions – SOS Democracy in Danger

          The Importance of Free and Fair Elections

          Elections are the mechanism through which the will of the people is expressed. Maintaining their integrity is non-negotiable for a functioning democracy.

          • Supporting Democratic Processes: It’s essential to ensure that elections are conducted transparently and fairly. This includes safeguarding against interference, ensuring all eligible voters can participate, and respecting the outcomes. See: Elections Under Attack – SOS Democracy in Danger
          • Rejecting Threats: Democracy cannot thrive in an environment of intimidation. Rejecting any form of coercion or threats related to electoral outcomes is crucial. Citizens should feel confident that their vote matters and that the process is free from undue influence.

          The Path Forward
          Addressing these challenges requires collective effort and commitment to democratic principles.

          • Civic Engagement: Active participation is vital. Voting is a fundamental right and responsibility, but engagement shouldn’t stop there. Advocacy, community involvement, and open dialogue contribute to a vibrant democracy.
          • Vigilance: Staying informed about governmental actions and policies is crucial. By monitoring changes that could undermine democratic institutions, citizens can hold leaders accountable and push back against detrimental shifts.

          Conclusion
          Democracy is not a static achievement but a continuous endeavor that requires our diligent protection. The freedoms and rights we enjoy today result from the hard work and sacrifices of those who came before us. Recognizing the fragility of democracy is the first step toward safeguarding it. We must not become complacent or assume that democratic erosion can’t happen here.

          Call to Action

          Now is the time to stand up for the democratic values that form the bedrock of our nation. By engaging in the political process, demanding accountability, and fostering open discourse, we can preserve our hard-won freedoms. Let us recommit to the principles of democracy, ensuring that it remains robust for future generations. The stakes are high, and the responsibility rests with each of us to keep the flame of democracy burning brightly.

          No matter how you feel about the individual candidates, this election is not just about who will be President, it is about what type of system you want to live under. It is Democracy Vs Authoritarianism.

          Editor
          Ric Vatner

Caught on Camera: A Blatant Admission of Election Interference

by | Sep 13, 2024 | SOS | 0 comments

 In what seems like an explosive confession in a recent TV interview, Donald Trump said: “Whoever heard you get indicted for interfering with a presidential election where you have every right to do it? You get indicted and your poll numbers go up. When people get indicted, your poll numbers go down.”

That’s what Donald Trump just said in a public interview. So, the question on most people’s mind now is, what is Jack Smith’s response going to be hearing Donald Trump confess out loud that he did indeed interfere in the election?

Glenn Kirschner, a retired federal prosecutor, said in an interview with Brian Taylor Cohen, “From a prosecutor’s perspective, Donald Trump’s mouth is the gift that keeps on giving. Everything that tumbles out of his mouth is what’s called a statement of a party opponent.”

What does that mean? It means it can all be introduced as evidence against him at trial. When he says, “I interfered in the election, and I got indicted and my poll numbers went up,” that is an admission that he interfered in an election.

Trump’s Self-Incrimination: How the Rules of Evidence Leave Him Exposed

The Rules of Evidence: When Jack Smith goes to trial against Donald Trump, he is going to be able to choose from everything Donald Trump has ever said that he did, and he’s going to be able to introduce statements of a party opponent—Donald Trump for instance, on camera saying he interfered in an election.

Another interesting fact about the Rules of Evidence is that Donald Trump’s lawyers can’t put witnesses on the stand to explain away his comments by saying, “Wait a minute, what Donald Trump meant by that was…” That would be hearsay.

The only person who will have a right to take the stand and explain what he meant when he told an interviewer he interfered in an election is Donald Trump himself. If he does that, he will be cross-examined thoroughly by Jack Smith’s prosecutors.

We all know Donald Trump cannot take the stand in his own defense because he is his own worst enemy on the stand. This gives Jack Smith a buffet of incriminating statements that Donald Trump has been saying for years to present to a jury and convict him.

Trump’s Legal Checkmate: Damned if He Talks, Damned if He Doesn’t

Kirschner also said, “The only impediment to getting Donald Trump convicted for his felony crimes of trying to overturn the results of a presidential election is getting the damn case into trial. The proof, the evidence, is going to be overwhelming.” Kirschner, is referring here to Trump’s so far mainly successful tactic of getting his trials postponed by making many, often frivolous, appeals to State and Federal appeals courts.

To answer the question, has Trump screwed himself? The answer is the only way he would be able to defend his comments is if he himself took the stand. If he does that, he opens himself up to a bloodbath at the hands of prosecutors who would finally be able to question him in a venue where he wouldn’t be allowed to lie as he freely does in the public arena, such as at his rallies and in interviews. So, in short, yes, he has put himself in legal jeopardy. He is damned if he takes the stand and lies and damned if he doesn’t.

Trump’s Greatest Enemy in Court? His Own Statements

That’s what the Rules of Evidence provide, and that’s what Donald Trump never considers. He is forever trying his case in the court of public opinion, where there are no rules of evidence, no rules of law, and the Constitution doesn’t control what people say. But once the case moves into court, Jack Smith can call a witness or just press play on a videotape where Donald Trump says, “Yeah, I interfered in an election, and my poll numbers went up.” At its core, that is an incriminating statement because he admitted he interfered in an election.

Donald Trump’s defense attorneys might argue that on another occasion, Trump gave an interview where he said he didn’t interfere in an election and request to play that tape for the jury. However, the judge would deny that request because a defendant can’t play his own out-of-court statements for the jury—only the prosecution can do that since it’s a statement of a party opponent.

This forces Trump to take the stand if he wants to try to explain it away.

Packing Up Trouble: Trump’s Document Confession Becomes Key Evidence

Kirschner highlighted another circumstance where Donald Trump is the best witness for the prosecution.

Trump took a whole bunch of documents when he left the White House. We don’t know who packed those boxes, but it is unlikely Trump did and carried them himself. So, Jack Smith would have had a massive task to prove Trump knew or authorized each document to be taken. That would have been a challenging proposition for Smith to prove. But once Trump started publicly admitting it, with words to the effect “You’re darn right I took those documents, I had every right to do that,” he removed the need to call numerous witnesses. Trump admitted it, making him his own worst enemy and the most compelling incriminating witness against himself at trial.

Jack Smith has been active in the grand jury recently, returning new indictments against Trump, including superseding or subsequent indictments. Kirschner suggested that prosecutors often continue to present evidence of a defendant’s admissions of guilt, leading to further indictments as additional crimes and codefendants emerge.

Trump’s High-Stakes Strategy: Admitting Crimes to Win Votes, Lose in Court

Donald Trump’s strategy appears to be admitting crimes publicly to make them seem less criminal. He hopes that if he admits things in broad daylight, it will seem less serious because it’s hard to believe someone would openly admit to a crime. He plays to the court of public opinion, hoping to sway enough people to vote for him, possibly allowing him to avoid legal consequences if re-elected. However, this strategy doesn’t account for how these statements will play in a court of law, which is ultimately the arena that matters.

Elections Under Attack

Elections Under Attack

by | Sep 11, 2024 | SOS | 0 comments

MAGA’s Tactics to Sabotage Democracy in Battleground States

Elections Under Attack

5 Minutes Play

The steps that Donald Trump and MAGA will take to suppress the vote and disenfranchise people in battleground states to try and steal the election, know no boundaries. Here are just two examples of MAGA’s tactics. No wonder Trump regularly says, he doesn’t need people to vote for him.

Arizona’s New Barriers to Voting: Citizenship Proofs and Legal Hurdles

Recently, the Republican National Committee, on behalf of Donald Trump, obtained an order from the United States Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision, impacting Arizona’s registered voters and those who need to register by the October 7th deadline. Despite publicly claiming support for counting every vote, privately, they are working to disenfranchise voters, especially in states like Arizona, where Joe Biden won by only 10,000 votes and where Senator Mark Kelly (D) is ahead by a narrow margin.

The new Supreme Court decision affects how voters prove citizenship before they can vote. Previously, individuals could register by signing an oath, acknowledging the legal consequences of fraudulent voting. However, after losing in 2020, Arizona’s Republican legislature introduced stricter requirements, making the registration process more cumbersome. They increased the hurdles by requiring voters to present additional documentation, such as a passport or birth certificate, and mandated that election clerks verify citizenship through databases, creating significant barriers.

Locked Out: The New Barriers Targeting First-Time Voters in Arizona

This new ruling particularly impacts new voters who register before the October 7th deadline. Democrats, who are leading the voter registration drives, must now ensure that voters gather the necessary documents. Although Democrats support election integrity, the changes are seen as voter suppression rather than a measure against meaningful fraud, as investigations, including those paid for by Trump, found no significant voter fraud in Arizona.

The court’s 5-4 decision reflects the current conservative majority, with Justices Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Roberts supporting the law, and Justices Barrett, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson dissenting. The decision underscores the Supreme Court’s ongoing shift in crucial areas, such as voting rights, separation of church and state, and women’s rights.

The upcoming election is critical, with the potential to recalibrate the court’s balance through future appointments. Meanwhile, Arizona voters, particularly those newly registering, must navigate these new hurdles, and Democrats are urged to continue their efforts to mobilize voters and push back against these suppressive measures. This battle over voting rights is seen as a vital component of the broader struggle to restore a functioning two-party system in the United States.

Georgia’s Election Board Takeover: MAGA’s New Power Play

A new major lawsuit has been filed in Fulton County, Georgia, which could impact the outcome of the election. This lawsuit, brought by the Democratic Party of Georgia and the national Democratic Party, targets the state election board in Georgia, which has recently been taken over by MAGA Trump supporters. With a 3-2 majority, the board now has control, and Donald Trump has praised them, calling them “pit bulls for victory” at a recent rally.

These new, partisan board members have passed a series of rules designed to create confusion and cast doubt on the election results in Georgia.

Even Georgia’s Republican Secretary of State, Brad Raffensperger, criticized these new rules, saying that they undermine voter confidence, delay results, and disrupt the election process. Raffensperger expressed concern about the state election board’s misguided attempts, which he believes will burden election workers and disrupt the established procedures for ensuring election integrity.

Legal Battles in Georgia: Fighting Against Last-Minute Changes

The lawsuit, filed as a verified petition for declaratory judgment, challenges these new rules, arguing that they are an attempt to disenfranchise voters and undermine the certification process. The lawsuit alleges that the new rules give board members and local officials aligned with Trump the power to delay certification, question the validity of the vote, and create unnecessary barriers for voters. It emphasizes that every state has a deadline for certifying election results, and any irregularities should be handled through the established court process, not through last-minute changes to election procedures.

Courtroom Clash: Democrats Fight MAGA’s New Rules to Delay Election Results

The Democratic Party’s legal action aims to prevent the board from using its new rules to interfere with the election outcome. The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the certification process is mandatory and must be completed by a specific deadline. It argues that the election board cannot create new rules that grant the election superintendent the discretion to delay or refuse certification without a judicial order, and it seeks a court ruling to reinforce the validity of the election process.

The Bigger Picture: MAGA’s National Strategy to Control Elections

This lawsuit addresses a broader strategy by MAGA supporters to place pro-Trump individuals on election boards across the country, particularly in battleground states, to interfere with the democratic process. Democrats have recognized this tactic and are fighting back with legal challenges to protect election integrity. The case is expected to move quickly, with a judge likely to hold a fast-track hearing, given the approaching election deadlines.

The lawsuit highlights the importance of maintaining confidence in the electoral process and ensuring that all votes are counted fairly. It aims to prevent last-minute rule changes designed to undermine voter trust and sow chaos, emphasizing that existing laws and procedures are sufficient to address any genuine concerns about fraud or irregularities. The Democratic Party’s swift legal response underscores its commitment to defending the integrity of elections and opposing efforts to manipulate the process for partisan gain.

Democracy in Danger: How MAGA’s Tactics Undermine Fair Elections

The actions in Arizona and Georgia reveal a clear pattern: MAGA and Trump are willing to bend, manipulate, and even break the rules to secure electoral victories, regardless of the legal or moral implications. From imposing new, burdensome requirements on first-time voters in Arizona to seizing control of election boards in Georgia, these tactics are designed to confuse, delay, and ultimately disenfranchise voters who are unlikely to support them.

These efforts are not about protecting the integrity of the vote, as investigations have repeatedly found no significant voter fraud; instead, they are calculated moves to tilt the playing field in their favor. 

Relentless, coordinated attacks on the electoral process show that Trump and his allies are not bound by the principles of democracy. They are actively rewriting the rules to undermine the fundamental right to vote, hoping to gain an advantage not at the ballot box, but in the courts and through bureaucratic maneuvers.

The fight against these tactics is more than a legal battle—it’s a battle for the soul of American democracy. As these lawsuits unfold, it becomes clearer than ever that defending the integrity of elections is not just about protecting individual votes, but about safeguarding the very foundation of a fair and functioning democratic system.