Former Houston City Council Intern Karen Ben-Moyal: Research Publication Data, Findings, and Recommendations to Fix Houston’s MBE/WBE Program

The following Excerpt was pulled from former Houston City Council Intern: Karen Ben-Moyal’s Executive Summary  incorporated into her Official Research Publication over her data findings and recommendations to fix the City of Houston’s MBE/WBE Program, which was originally created to exclusively grow and promote Houston’s small businesses that are owned and run by minorities and women only. Both the data and the proposal were presented by her former Employer, Houston City Councilman Mike Knox, to the Mayor of Houston, Sylvester Turner, in January of 2017.

“According to the research recently conducted through use of Houston’s Office of Business Opportunities website within the last several months, studies showed that after calling 500 of the 1,929 M/WBE businesses listed on Houston’s OBO website, 1 in every 5 vendors was out of business. Additionally, other statistics acquired on Houston’s MBE/WBE program proved that 1 in every 3 listed OBO vendors were in business, but had not renewed their certification licenses in years. This report presents the findings collected from a number of issues derived from the city of Houston’s OBO program. It then discusses the recommendations for potential improvement and various plans towards success, for both contractors and subcontractors of Houston’s small businesses. These recommendations were based off the City of Chicago’s WBE/MBE Procurement program and website, as well as Chicago’s ordinances which were recently implemented. These recent implementations to Chicago’s OBO program proved to provide ground-breaking tools that not yet been surpassed in revenue and level of overall successes. These include helpful workshops and symposiums, which assist vendors in running their minority and/or women-owned businesses, regular auditing systems, financial reimbursement programs, and graduation programs; which allow subcontractors to quickly graduate and become prime vendors with ease. In sum, this report represents months of research, discussion, analysis, and outreach in further identifying opportunities to improve efficiency, increase accountability, and economize public funds in government procurement. The Office of Business Opportunities’ stated goal is about implementing innovative paths for growth, creating new ways to promote equal and fair opportunity in small businesses, and efficient ordinances introduced and maintained by the city. In order to stimulate efficiency in communication/collaboration, and to expand small-business vendors and jobs, a channel of local government must be willing to provide resources to businesses that currently lack the appropriate amount of courteous guidance, competitiveness, and financial assistance required to succeed in their local communities’ businesses. However, based on the findings from Houston, an apparent lack of coordination among qualified vendors directly impacts the vendor community. Complication and confusion created by varying processes and forms can create barriers to entry and frustration among businesses. This potentially results in a less competitive vendor pool. It also fuels the perception that Houston is a challenging city with which to do business. Contrastingly, one city that seems to have a successful procurement program is the City of Chicago’s M/WBE program. The City of Chicago’s plan highlights recurring opportunities for active vendors to reduce burden and cost through collaboration, joint purchasing, and shared services, as well as enact meaningful reforms. The City of Chicago’s efforts are intended to further current efforts to ensure that their policies and practices support competition, efficiency, transparency, integrity, and uniformity in procurement.”

In order to view the PDF files of both the physical data collected, as well as the official report on the findings of my research and the recommendations I came up with in response to these findings, please view the 2 followings links listed below:

  1. To view PDF file of the data pie chart used to project OBO Statistics collected, click here to openLink for Data Spread Sheet: Collection of OBO Statistics Prior to Writing Research on Findings and Recommendations
  2.    To view the PDF file of my executive summary, findings, and recommendations report, please click this: Link for Final Research Report Houston’s Office of Business Opportunities Program: Executive Summary, Findings, and Recommendations
Copyright: Karen Ben-Moyal, 2017

Students for a Better Future Radio Interview, “The World in Crisis with Karen Ben-Moyal.” (Link & Audio)

If you’re interested, here is the website link & Audio to my hour-long interview with radio talk show hosts from Students for a Better Future last night. I thoroughly enjoyed the conversation we engaged in.  I’ll have to take the hosts up on their offer to come back on the show and speak again soon!

Listen to the audio file version:

Listen via the direct link and Explore Students for a Better Future website:


Thank you so much!


Why Inequality Trumps Equality: In a Nutshell

Equality before the law is essential, in terms of how it is applied to people, and this is enforced more successfully in the United States than most other countries.

However, our inequalities are what make Americans thrive and work so well together. We should embrace these differences– not suppress them. They are the gems which make our country so special and so unique. Not to mention, it’s what makes us sovereign; the shining city on the hill. 

Yes, we are all equal under the law– and rightfully so– but our conflicting characteristics, ambitions, goals, dreams, interests, aspirations– our DIVERSITY– is what truly makes this country continue to grow economically and thrive strategically… If we were all equal, we would never have the opportunity to pursue our own version of the American dream, for we wouldn’t have the freedom to do so.

So yes– equality is silly. Makes you wonder why so many ppl our age advocate for this foolishness. I suppose silly people lack the ability to connect these dots that have been right in front of all of us this entire time….?! 

Thus, our INEQUALITIES are what drive capitalistic societies into becoming the FAIREST systems of government, in the world. 

Feminism is Cancer

This undying issue is becoming more and more outrageous– at least within the spectrum of American millennials– I feel it needs to be addressed.

Respectfully, I have just one basic question for you Self-proclaimed feminists: Why can’t women celebrate the magic only we can perform and that men can’t? Instead of striving to be like men, why not embrace our gender’s unique abilities?
– Ex. The ability to create human life is the single most miraculous process performed in this universe. So much so that it is truly beyond human comprehension. Yet, this formula is only endowed upon one gender. In fact, it is impossible for men to ever experience growing another life form, developing it for 9 months, and then producing the end result by escorting it out of ones own body. The miracle of life is just one example.

Ladies! Please Realize that WE have the upper hand. Why not utilize our unique abilities instead of wasting them by whining or longing for the opportunity to have what men possess and that women allegedly don’t. *We all know we’ve got equal rights here in America. In fact, our country was the first to address this issue & revolutionize an entire movement out of it. America’s women’s rights movement even paved the path toward the adoption of women’s rights worldwide. In case you haven’t heard the memo, we succeeded. Equal opportunity in the USA prevailed. Just sayin, I believe these inexplicable wonders that WOMEN possess and MEN cannot ever experience–should be celebrated– not stomped on.

Embracing your badass magical powers > Pretending to fight for rights we already have.

But that’s just my opinion.

The Rehnquist Court’s Federalist Legacy & The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment

Read Word Doc by Clicking here.

Karen Ben-Moyal

Constitutional Law


The purpose of the 10th Amendment has been a controversial issue since the founding of America’s constitution. Of all the foundations implemented into the Bill of Rights and the Constitution since America’s founding, the issues which continue to surround the Tenth Amendment have stemmed from the conflicting interpretations of both the court and politicians at different points in time. In fact, they remain at the heart of the most controversial debates to date. Furthermore, the tenth amendment, which states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people,”[1] is meant to protect each of these powers from both entities. Those powers not delegated are reserved. It says nothing about whether delegated powers are to be broadly or strictly construed. In retrospect, the most significant differences in constitutional law are a direct result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s revival of federalism as a constraint on federal power. The federalism decisions, which will be discussed in detail, are the product of the Rehnquist Court. With a majority comprised of five conservative SCOTUS justices under the leadership of William Rehnquist who were all deeply committed to protecting state rights from federal government invasion. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and O’Connor, were responsible for introducing the concept of “New Federalism,” which virtually affected every area of U.S law, both civil and criminal, which ultimately changed the course of history and the future of the Supreme Court. The Court’s rulings are also pledged with restoring what the founders had in mind when they composed the tenth amendment. Among them, to restore dual sovereignty between government entities, establish an effective and fair system of centralized power, and overall, protecting the virtues that come with the promise of individual liberty. Thus, the goal of this report is to address and evaluate past Supreme court cases and specific provisions that were both relevant to the reconstruction of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on the powers of Congress, and were resolved by the Rehnquist Court. It will also provide an analysis to express the data and briefings which are fundamental to each court case, and thus significant to the evolution of constitutional law. Another area that requires further analyzation concerns the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Therefore, an analysis over the significant role that the Rehnquist Court played in the expansion of sovereign immunity is essential to understanding this part of the discussion.

The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment Over Time

Throughout the course of American history, the Supreme Court has transitioned between two very different forms of federalism.  The details of these changes in interpretation throughout American history are worth noting. The first involves a somewhat nationalist view, or the belief that the tenth amendment is not a separate constraint on Congress, and that it is only a reminder that Congress may only legislate if it has authority under the Constitution. The second pertains to the “federalist” approach, or the conviction that the tenth amendment protects state sovereignty from federal intrusion.   In America’s first century of existence, the Court took the former approach. In the court case, Gibbons v. Ogden[2], for example, Chief Justice John Marshall rejected the perception that the scope of Congress’s powers had any limits under the Tenth Amendment because he held the strong belief that any exercise of constitutional enumerated authority was granted by the constitution unto congress to serve the purpose of expanding scope of Congress’s Commerce Clause. This vision last until 1890’s until 1937 when the Supreme Court shifted to the latter approach. During this time period, the Court placed great emphasis on the Tenth Amendment, redefining it as a limit on congressional power. An example of this was represented in the court case, Hammer v. Dagenhart,[3] when Congress passed a law forbidding the shipment of good in interstate commerce if those goods were manufactured by any form of child labor. The Supreme Court held that it violated the Tenth Amendment. From the late 1930s until the early 1990s, constitutional clauses related to federalism were greatly discounted due to the massive expansion of federal power enacted under Franklin D. Roosevelt and his “New Deal” Congress. Under the leadership of the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist, however, the meaning of the Tenth Amendment utterly transformed the way the Courts view the idea of federalism, creating a new form of this concept called “New Federalism.”  Further, the decisions made by the Rehnquist Court involving the Tenth Amendment not only strengthened the bond that coincide between two different entities of government, it also reinvigorated the concept of Federalism by achieving an even greater endeavor. It defied the majoritarian opinion of the elitists, essentially giving back what was lost by the states throughout time and history, gaining back the power to govern on their own terms. Thus, this was a victory for both the states and the people. Public trust in the government has since increased because the people being governed are lacking in fear of tyrannical overthrow by the national government.  As for the states, they were given back the powers by which they were originally intended to receive.  Three sets of doctrines were at the heart of some of the major decisions held by the Rehnquist Court. Taken all together, these three manifestations of constitutional law epitomize a Revolutionary departure from court decisions in prior years.  The following manifestations by the Rehnquist Court include themes which represent the court’s devotion to the preserving of states’ rights and importance of state autonomy: 1. Significant limitations placed on the scope of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause and under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. 2. The revival of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power. 3. Finally, the court’s expansion of the sovereign immunity doctrine.

Limiting the Scope of the Commerce Power

Over the years, the Rehnquist Court handed down a succession of decisions which drew stable boundaries between the powers of the national and state governments.  In turn, the court was able to effectively keep tight rein on congressional power under the interstate commerce clause.

Gregory v. Ashcroft

Gregory v. Ashcroft,[4] was a case in which four Missouri state court judges challenged the provisions of the Missouri Constitution located in Article V, 26, which ensured a mandatory retirement age of 70 for most state judges. The court was then compelled to consider whether or not the mandatory retirement provision violates the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (“ADEA”)[5]. The Missouri judges further argued that the mandatory retirement provision violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This case was significant because of the fact that it signified one of the first indications of the resurrection of the Tenth Amendment. Another noteworthy point the Court added to its decision in this case stressed the importance of autonomous state governments.

United States v. Lopez

The court case, United States v. Lopez,[6] is considered one of the most important Supreme Court decisions that limited the power of Congress under the commerce clause. With respect to the defense of states’ rights, this case set a paramount precedent for the court’s future.  A 12th grade student brought a gun to school. The student was caught, charged, and convicted under the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1990, which stated that possession of a firearm within 1000 feet of a school zone is considered a federal crime. In court, the defendant argued that the act was an unconstitutional act of the Commerce Clause which exceeded the scope of Congress’s powers. Moreover, in U.S. v. Lopez, the Court expanded upon the theoretical reasoning previously applied to the case of Gregory v. Ashcroft. Moreover, it concocted a rule of disposition which limited the scope of Congress’s commerce power for the very first time since the New Deal. Justice Rehnquist delivered the opinion for the court’s decision by retracing fundamental principles. In his ruling, Rehnquist quoted James Madison’s vindication located within the Federalist Papers, he stated that “The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. This constitutionally mandated division of authority was adopted by the Framers to ensure protection of our fundamental liberties.”[7] Thus, the court held that, “Congress can regulate under the commerce clause only in three circumstances: 1) the channels of interstate commerce; 2) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce and persons or things in interstate commerce; and 3) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The Court found that the federal law prohibiting guns near schools met none of these requirements and thus was unconstitutional.”[8] The same logic was applied to the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, (in the case of United States v. Morrison[9]), which Congress authorized under the pretense of the Commerce Act.

Cases such as Lopez and Morrison open the door to constitutional challenges to countless federal laws, especially those that regulate non-economic activities.

Narrowing the Scope of Congress’s Powers: Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment

Another significant source of congressional power worth noting is section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection and Due Process Clause, in particular. It establishes that Congress has the power to enforce its provisions. However, this power was significantly restricted in 1997, in the decision of a case called City of Boerne v. Flores[10] in which the Court ruled that Congress may not use its Section 5 powers for the expansion of the scope of rights or implement new ones.

City of Boerne v. Flores

In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Court declared the Religious Freedom Restoration Act unconstitutional because it sought to enhance protection of the free exercise of religion. The Court argued that the expansion of the scope of rights made it impermissible for the court’s authority to determine the content of religious freedoms. There is an issue here. The dramatic new limit on federal powers puts the constitutionality of many federal civil rights laws in doubt. Another problem that this ruling created was that it (almost) seems as if this case was the precursor to states’ rights beginning to infringe upon the powers of the federal government. You start to see drastic changes and major complications in later Supreme Court decisions. A major change in the way the court approaches future cases dealing with state governments and their newfound ability to avoid being sued, by almost any means by the national government, become apparent in later years. You begin to notice a pattern in cases such as Kimel v. Florida Board of Regents,[11] when the Court decided that state governments may not be sued for violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Decisions such as these set the precedent that state governments cannot be sued when they violate federal law. The crucial question persists: Is this an instance in which the Rehnquist Court went too far in extending the power of the states?

Revival of the Tenth Amendment as a Limit on Congressional Power

Another aspect of the Rehnquist Court’s federalism revival has been its use of the Tenth Amendment as a limit on federal power. During this time, the Supreme Court held that the Tenth Amendment reserves a zone of activities for exclusive state control. Rehnquist’s first major triumph came in the 1976 case of National League of Cities v. Usery[12], which established a limit on the powers of Congress to interfere with such “traditional governmental functions.” Additionally, the Tenth Amendment also prevents the congress interference of certain (state) law making processes. In the next two decisions discussed, the Rehnquist Court revived the Tenth Amendment as a constraint on Congress’s authority.

New York v. United States

For the first time since the overruled case, National League of Cities[13], the decision held in New York v. United States[14], the Court invalidated a federal law as violating the Tenth Amendment. Moreover, the court held that, “While Congress can encourage states to dispose of waste, they do not have the authority to compel them to do so.”[15]   In New York v. United States, a federal law deemed the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act,[16] required states to provide for the safe disposal of radioactive wastes generated within their borders. The act also provided monetary incentives for states to comply with the law and allowed states to impose a surcharge on radioactive wastes received from other states. Moreover, the act protected the claim that if states did not properly dispose of any wastes within their borders by January 1, 1996, they would essentially “take title,” or in essence take responsibility for all damages, thereby inserting them the obligation to become accountable for any future damages that may or may not occur, both indirectly or directly. Nonetheless, by a 6-3 margin, the Rehnquist Court held that the “take title” provision of the law unconstitutional because Congress imposing either option on the states would be considered impermissible and strictly off limits under the constitution. The Court contested this argument by which the defense stated, “that it was ‘clear’ because of the Tenth Amendment, that ‘the Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.”[17]

Printz v. United States

Several years later, in Printz v. United State[18]s, the Court applied and extended New York v. United States. The significance of this case was that it further extended the limits on congressional power to use state officers directly. Moreover, Printz involved a more controversial challenge to the federal Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act, which required that the “chief law enforcement officer” of each local jurisdiction conduct background checks before issuing permits for firearms.[19] The Court concluded that Congress violated the Tenth Amendment by compelling states to implement federal mandates.  This case was also significant because the majority opinion contained the revival of the term, “dual sovereignty,” [20] which was redeemed by Justice Scalia in order to explain the structure of American government.

The Expansion of Sovereign Immunity

Another indispensable change in the law from the Rehnquist Court has been the Supreme Court’s significant expansion and rejuvenation within the scope of the doctrine of state sovereign immunity from civil suits under the Eleventh Amendment.

Alden v. Maine

In Alden v. Maine[21], probation officers in the state of Maine sought compensation for their hours of overtime work. They argued overtime pay was required under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The act permits state employees to sue in trials held by their own state courts. However, a Maine trial court dismissed their assertions on the grounds that sovereign immunity exists in this case. The Supreme Court later affirmed the decision and held that because of state sovereign immunity, a state government cannot be sued in state court without the consent of the state, even if the basis is off a federal claim. After a 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy expressly defended sovereign immunity based on this assumption. Thus, the following explains the reasoning behind the court’s decision. Delivered by Kennedy for the majority opinion:

“The constitutional privilege of a State to assert its sovereign immunity in its own courts does not confer upon the State a concomitant right to disregard the Constitution or valid federal

 law. The States and their officers are bound by obligations imposed

 by the Constitution and by federal statutes that comport with the

 constitutional design. We are unwilling to assume the States will

 refuse to honor the Constitution or obey the binding laws of the

 United States. The good faith of the States thus provides an

 important assurance that “[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the

 United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof … shall be

 the supreme Law of the Land.” U.S. Const., Art. VI. (103)”[22]


In other words, the court held that the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act violates Maine’s sovereign immunity guaranteed under the Eleventh Amendment. Although this logic does not stem directly from a literal translation of the Eleventh Amendment, the grounds for this decision are well within the Constitutional structure that promotes the argument for a view of federalism that does not violate the common law principle that, “a sovereign may not be sued without its consent.”[23]

Gonzales v. Raich

Finally, in Gonzales v. Raich,[24] both principles of state sovereignty and of enumerated powers were ultimately tested in the court of law. At the time, California was one of nine states that legalized medical marijuana. Despite this fact, federal agents confiscated medicinal weed plants from the property of a California resident under the Compassionate Use Act.[25] Even if you don’t agree with Rehnquist’s opinion here, and as far as significance goes, this case was the one in which William Rehnquist’s no-nonsense character really made an impact on the perception of the chief justice. In Gonzales v. Raich, Rehnquist made a legend out of himself, for he was one of only three justices who were willing to stand up and defend his faithfulness and devotion for states’ rights, (even though the opinion went against the majority of the court). It is even likely that his decision in this case was highly unpopular among the majority of the people living in the United States of America at the time. The chief joined the dissenting opinion written by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, which in reality, consisted of the most basic logical principles. They rebutted the claim that Congress cannot just decide to transform the noncommercial possession of homegrown marijuana, on the basis of nothing, not in the abstract nor the law, in attempts to classify it within the same category as “interstate commerce.” Finally, the court concluded that, “Congress has the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana under the power of the commerce clause.”[26] Justices O’Connor, Rehnquist, and Thomas made five or six valid arguments when they dissented this decision. Among them, is that the decision would allow Congress to regulate intrastate activity without audits, so long as there is some indication of a legislative pattern, and if it appears that the regulating of intrastate activity is consistent with the interstate regulatory scheme. The last argument we shall discuss is notable because it uses the substantiated basis for stare decisis.  The dissenting opinion addressed the inconsistencies that come to light when comparing this Gonzales v. Raich with Lopez.  The Court said Lopez’s regulations were not commercial and that Congress should have just said that the crime was “transfer or possession of a firearm,” thus including some commercial activity and making it constitutional. However, this was not the case. Furthermore, The Court also warned that this was clear sign of possible federal tyranny in the distant or not so distant future. The dissenters suggested that if the Court always succumbs to Congress in this way, enumerated powers may eventually lose their substance and thus render the risk of total government takeover on the national scale.


Throughout America’s history, the Tenth Amendment has had an ever-changing effect on the way American citizens view their government. In contrast, it has also had a substantial effect on the way the government governs their people, and the ways they are allowed to govern their people.  Furthermore, this research paper sought to examine the nature of this transition, and dissect preceding Supreme Court cases and decisions in which the court had previously invoked the Tenth Amendment.  While there were negative connotations involved in the process, the benefits of this cultivation probably outweighed the bad things. The trust of the public is essential in effectively governing a Republic, and it would be scarce if Congress alone decided the boundaries on how to police the limits of its own power, especially because of the serious concerns held by the majority being governed. Further, the idea of “New Federalism” is not only beneficial to the order of American Constitutionalism, it creates a huge benefactor to both the people, and their government, because of the inevitable doubts that arise from the dangers of excessive control by the federal government. Thus, national powers are implicated by the specific issues that the Supreme Court’s federalism cases address. Whatever the perspective, it is generally agreeable that the Tenth Amendment coexists in our Constitution with some of the most important clauses ever enforced. These provisions are what make up the foundation of our nation’s unique constitution. Taking the position of safeguarding and reestablishing foundational principles that had been lost in history. These include the advancement of the concept of equality, the establishment of an effective line between the separation of powers, and overall, the court’s accomplishments in the narrowing of the scope by which congressional authority has the right to rule over the states.

List of Cases

  1. Gibbons v. Ogden: (1824)
  2. Hammer v. Dagenhart: (1937)
  3. National League of Cities v. Usery: 426 U.S. 833, 96 S. Ct. 2465, 49 L. Ed. 2d 245, (1976)
  4. Gregory v. Ashcroft: 501 US 452 (1991)
  5. New York v. United States: 505 U.S. 144 (1992)
  6. United States v. Lopez (1995)
  7. Seminole Tribe v. Florida (1996)
  8. Printz v. United States: 521 U.S. 898, (1997)
  9. City of Boerne v. Flores (1997)
  10. Alden v. Maine: 527 US 706 (1999)
  11. United States v. Morrison: (2000)
  12. Kimel Florida Board of Regents (2001)
  13. Gonzales v. Raich (2005)


Bibliography: List of Additional Sources Used to Complete Research

  1. Hensley, Thomas R., Kathleen Hale, and Carl Snook. The Rehnquist Court: Justices, Rulings, and Legacy. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2006. Print.
  2. Carp, Robert A., and Ronald Stidham. “Annotated Constitution.” The Federal Courts. Fifth Edition ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 1985. 273. Print.
  3. Lash, Kurt T. “James Madison’s Celebrated Report of 1800: The Transformation of the Tenth Amendment by Kurt T. Lash :: SSRN. Elsevier, 16 Nov. 2005. Web. 22 Nov. 2016. <;.
  4. Lemieux, Scott. “Law &Amp; Society Review.” Law &Amp; Society Review, vol. 43, no. 1, 2009, pp. 235–237.
  5. Parker, Christopher M. “Ideological Voting in Supreme Court Federalism Cases, 1953-2007.” The Justice System Journal, vol. 32, no. 2, 2011, pp. 206–234.
  6. Rogers, Henry Wade. “The Constitution and the New Federalism.” The North American Review, vol. 188, no. 634, 1908, pp. 321–335.
  7. Siegel, Jonathan R., and David L. Hudson. “Political Science Quarterly.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 122, no. 4, 2007, pp. 688–689.
  8. Calabresi, Steven G. “Federalism and the Rehnquist Court: A Normative Defense.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 574, 2001, pp. 24–36.
  9. Choper, Jesse H., Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Yale Kamisar, Steven Shriffin, Michael C. Dorf, and Frederick Schauer. Constitutional Rights and Liberties: Cases, Comments, Questions. Twelfth ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2001. Print.




[1] Carp, Robert A., and Ronald Stidham. “Annotated Constitution.” The Federal Courts. Fifth Edition ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 1985. 273. Print.

[2] Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1 (1824)

[3] Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U.S. 251 (1918)

[4] See Gregory v. Ashcroft,  501 U.S. 452 (1991).

[5] 29 U.S.C. §§ 621-634 (1982 & Supp.1987).

[6] United States v. Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995).

[7] See Federalist  Papers: The Federalist Papers. Chicago, IL: CALI ELangdell, n.d. Web.

[8] See:

[9] United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598 (2000).

[10] City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997).

[11] See Kimel v.Florida Board of Regent, 528 US 62 (2000).

[12]  See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 US 833 (1976).

[13] See National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 US 833 (1976).

[14] New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).

[15]   See cases New York v. United States & Printz v. United States (Court Rulings)

[16] Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980. In response to the complex disposal issue, Congress passed the Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-573), which established that each state was responsible for disposing LLRW generated within its boundaries.


[18] Printz v. United States (95-1478), 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

[19] The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act (Pub.L. 103–159, 107 Stat. 1536, enacted November 30, 1993), often referred to as the Brady Act or the Brady Bill,[1][2] is an Act of the United States Congress that mandated federal background checks on firearm purchasers in the United States, and imposed a five-day waiting period on purchases, until the NICS system was implemented in 1998.

[20] See– Dual Sovereignty Doctrine: maxim of law which allows the double prosecution of a person by more than one state for the same crime, where both states have jurisdiction for the prosecution, and notwithstanding the double jeopardy rule.

[21] Alden v. Maine, 527 U.S. 706 (1999).

[22] Quote from the majority opinion delivered by Justice Kennedy of the Rehnquist Court in Alden v. Maine.

[23] Quote pulled from Chapter LIV. The Suability Of States. 611. A Sovereign State May Not Be Sued Without Its Consent.

[24] See Gonzalez v. Raich, 2005. 545 US 1 (2005).

[25] See 410 ILCS 130/) Compassionate Use of Medical Cannabis Pilot Program Act.

[26] Choper, Jesse H., Richard H. Fallon, Jr., Yale Kamisar, Steven Shriffin, Michael C. Dorf, and Frederick Schauer. Constitutional Rights and Liberties: Cases, Comments, Questions. Twelfth ed. St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2001. Print.


Is Your Personal Quest for Self-Righteousness More Important than your Country?

© [Karen Ben-Moyal]. All Rights Reserved.

A Message for the #NeverTrumpers Whom Have Steered So Far to the Right, they’ve consequently Ended up on the Left:

Cruz may have been the most conservative candidate, but that doesn’t make you the most conservative voter. When you join with the establishment in opposing Trump and help the Left to win, you are not upholding righteousness;

You are deluding yourself.



Edmund Burke once said of patriotism: “To make us love our country, our country ought to be lovely.”

I wonder: if the men who fought and died for our country in order to establish America as the shining city on the hill could see what the Democrats are doing to her now, would they consider America “lovely?”

Hell, we can’t even keep an eye on Old Glory anymore. All aquaintance is most certainly forgotten, yet, we refuse to honor our word and show respect when OUR flag is waved.

We demand equality, yet violently protest at presidential campaign rallies and spit on one another for having opposing views. 

….because this is apparently who we are as a people now.

It is of critical importance that We, the people, begin to come to terms with this notion of reality, a concept that requires honest admittance to one self that we, you and I, are born of human descent, and therefore encompass all that is possible through human nature. Human nature is a given, something we are born with. Something that all men, from here to Tim Buck Two, are born with.  Moreover, we must admit to ourselves that being human comes with the prospects that give us natural rights. These rights were inscribed into the American constitution so that we may never forget them. Now, it is high time we actively enact our duties as Americans, by keeping sacred, the rights to live and to prosper, or to not. The choice is up to you.

And that is a beautiful thing.

We must unite to fight for our rights, (to party.. ha ha).

…Seriously though, as free Americans, we must ensure that the USA-born traditions that come with freedom and all that it ensues, are strong enough to last for generations to come. It is our duty as American mothers, fathers, grandparents, and everyone in between, to ensure that our children have the same opportunities that we had in life.

We need to ‘secure the blessings of liberty, to ourselves, and our posterity,’

…so that we may grow and prosper as a nation, as a culture, and ultimately, as truly free human beings. 

We must realize it is our sacred duty to protect the rights were born with, or have acquired through American citizenship.. the rights to own property, the rights to live as equals among your fellow men and women, no matter your class, race, ethnicity, gender, etc… 

With this being an election year, the importance of a strong republican group on campus is vital to promote the core principles of the United States. Our commitment TO building an America, where freedom, opportunity, prosperity and civil society flourish, is being swept under the rug of the 21st century, and being outrageously taken for granted. As individuals in a representative democracy, the biggest weapon we have is our right to vote. The power to vote is both a sacred form of democracy, and a privilege. We, the People, should always honor this duty. We should exercise this freedom in respect for the men and women that sacrificed their lives, and for the future well-being of our nation in general. However, an overwhelming amount of young voters aged 18-24, have chosen not to vote in recent decades. The youth vote has the potential to drive the presidential election this year. However, voting in the 21st century “is more like a trend” on college campuses. I feel like if you don’t know much about politics, don’t vote. Younger people don’t, because it’s not so much part of the culture anymore, they do not feel as though it is their duty as American citizens. This country cannot take another presidency focused on extreme liberal ideology. Students, by a wide margin, support Bernie Sanders. We must shift this tide of socialism being viewed as “cool.” Many conservatives are falling back into their liberal roots and the liberal trap of self-righteousness in their anger over Trump’s victory. They would rather go down in defeat than support anything less than perfection. Thinking you can make this a perfect world is what immature liberals believe. However, the Republicans are in part to blame for letting this foolishness, their delusions are assisting the left in furthering the suicide of our nation.

Self-righteous hypocrisy is a trait of the Left. When you are following the evil you say you oppose you may want to re-examine your priorities.

The Bottom Line: Delusional conservatives think sabotaging Trump will make them heroes

     “My learning and my knowledge may be profound, though not  nearly profound enough. In fact, I often find more truths in not knowing, and I am confident that the more I learn, the less I know. And in my universe, the axis on which my conscience eternally spins,  is most self-evident of all  ” 

-K. Ben-Moyal

“…Our greatest challenge is to awaken the minds of college students to the cause of their own salvation and the salvation of future generations so that they may live as free and flourishing human beings…

After all,

 …TO change the country, America’s young revolutionaries have to do something truly revolutionary: They have to convince their friends to vote like old people.”

K. Ben-Moyal

⇒ Further, We, the People, must open our minds instead of simply regurgitating what you hear from your professors and classmates or social media videos. We must finally connect the dots that have been right in front of us the entire time. We need to do what is right for us and our posterity; this requires critical thinking and logic. Question everything and believe nothing. Not until you, yourself, have looked up the facts that you may not even want to know. Do it. It is your children’s freedom and livelihoods at stake. Moreover, it is important that we truly question our basic beliefs once and for all, we must end this period of being hindered by what I like to refer to as this nation’s “fantastic shadow.”

If you want a revolution, you have to vote for it. Not just every four years. Not just for cool candidates. Not just for political outsiders unsullied by the soot of experience.

I am here to unveil a curtain, to unmask the demons in disguise who wish to control us, and ultimately, to focus on transforming the status quo.

Like it or not, we now have a presumptive Republican nominee for President. We have to get over these crazy divisions. It is time for us to all realize that the American dream is hanging in the balance. We don’t have time for petty differences within the GOP party. Democrats win because of their greater drive for victory and superior ground strategy, but we are the wealth creators in this country. It is our wealth they want to take. The Democrats are playing to win; we are playing as if it’s for the fun of the game. We have been fighting in one corner of the battlefield and they have been doing the long march through the institutions of our culture. We can change that this year. We must.

Everyone knows the five stages of grief: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance. Regarding the insurgent candidacy of Donald Trump for the Republican presidential nomination, it looks like we’re somewhere between four and five now:

The attack on Trump is already underway: Americans of both party affiliations continue to unleash their fury on Trump, calling him a racist and trying to link him to the KKK—you know, the organization that required you to be a Democrat before you joined?!?

– While the anti-Trump groups have outlined a state-by-state bid to deprive him of the 1,237 delegates he needs to secure the Republican nomination and to force a contested convention in Cleveland — what would be the GOP’s first since 1976 — there’s growing worry that such an event could be traumatic for the party. Trump has said there could be “riots” if he’s denied the nomination — and while many Republicans, including Kasich, have condemned those remarks as inciting violence, many also fear the consequences if he is right. Folks, the way to beat Trump is, was, and always has been, to beat Trump. A euchred convention at this point would be a very, very bad idea. You’re too late, suck it up and get with the program.

→ Some are lying to themselves, some are seeking out their own self-righteousness, and some are truly blinded and remain ignorant towards reality. It can happen to anyone – brainwash tactics are constantly being spewed in our daily lives. Most of us do not realize it.. WHICH is precisely why I am here. Open your eyes America- today’s blatantly biased media and education system- which is, by the way, funded and owned by the government in power, share a symbiotic relationship with one another. Each of these major outlets continues to collect their own personal gains right in front of us. They are making a mockery of the citizens of this great nation; reaping the benefits for our suffrage in return. 

My goal in writing this, was to argue and defend the reasons to vote Republican in this next presidential election. The reasons that one should not simply “stay home” and/or whine about Donald Trump being the “least conservative” candidate will contribute greatly to my argument. I contest that the best chance this country has, requires every Republican voter to suck it up; and to UNITE.. To stand up against the face of evil by coming together and  raising awareness… Together, we may strive for the common good,  and in this case, work towards what should be EVERYONE’s end goal– in defeating Hillary. Once again, I declare that it is of the utmost importance– that the GOP not give in to the forces that continue strengthening the pressures dividing us. Those same forces have already caused the largest division America has seen since the Civil rights movements were enacted, **(those of which were invoked  by REPUBLICANS and passed through REPUBLICAN legislation).*** The conquering and dividing of a nation by one political party, has caused the facts to not only become misconstrued, but have once again,  successfully caused the distortion of facts that remain hidden behind the curtain of the Democratic Party. They had a very good reason to do so, and had a very easy time doing it. IT is simple: After discovering that most Americans do not tend to question their trusted government, for it is the only government written of the people, for the people, and by the people. Many ignorant Americans have become all too comfortable being born into this era of ease, the era of the Millennial.  This way of thinking is actually what has caused our demise, and has indirectly assisted with helping evil prosper, and unintentionally allowing the “Regressives” to continue covering their tracks, to this day. They’ve certainly done a number on this nation, from slavery to enslavement,  how far will we Conservatives let this go? IT is WAY past time  for us to step in and finally do something about this negligence, this neglect being thwarted upon the innocent citizens of America, time and time again. Let us repeal and banish the evil doings that have been done unto the ones that continue being fooled. Let us do so by lifting the veil, and by exposing once and for all,  the true colors of the Democrat regime. Whilst taking a stand and voting against the criminals that still remain at large, let us liberate the eyes and hearts of our fellow Americans, once again. It is up TO US to vote the LESSER OF TWO EVILS THIS UPCOMING ELECTION… or, I am saddened to say, that I genuinely fear the worst for this country. A Clinton presidency would so utterly transform America–as to make it unrecognizable. No more will America be a land of opportunity. Instead, it will be a land of rapacious crony capitalism, run solely for the benefit of friends of the “Obamas” and the “Clintons” and the “Democratic Party”…AKA the undercover criminals. It will, in fact, be the fulfillment of a dream for the criminals still at large, the criminals that make up the Democratic Party. I will hereby exploit the hidden  agenda that a party has had from the beginning…a dream of stealing America for the politically favored few…

   With extensive research, and through use of multiple channels, sourced with sufficient data and support for evidence, I shall further entail in my analysis, the answers coupled with the explanations, to address and debunk the most common myths and assumptions Americans have come to believe and unknowingly rally for. The distorted, entangled, political web, that has seemingly spun out of control, due to the non stop lies and misconceptions consistently being fed to the people. This ancient tactic, used by dictatorships throughout history, has been made possible by societal impact of today’s major outlet sources. The 21st century has molded a sort of false reality into almost every American’s brain- a liberal dogma if you will; a dogma being nailed into us on a daily basis, only because of today’s falsified scandals and bogus reports, the ones that are made possible only by the leftist worthy news reporters and writers… Read and brought to you by the most biased, opinionated, left wing, power hungry hoaxers and even your college professors and school teachers, who are all, by the way, in on the hoax for the same reasons. These reasons are quite parsimonious when one ponders them after realization of their existence. They all have the same agenda, and will do whatever it takes to acquire their own personal gains, even if it means destroying anyone that stands in the way of their plans to effortlessly persuade the individuals that make up America’s youth, or even the average Joe that comes home from work, just in time to catch the five o clock news. Who are these people? What are the outlets they use to feed their victims? Behold, they are none other than those whom consume and dominate our: 1. Mainstream Media, 2.Academia, 3. Our Liberal government that we’ve let run our lives for the past eight years. When one follows the money, and the truth that history provides us with, one can no longer be blinded by these wrong doers and slave enforcers. It inevitably becomes clear as day, that these groups stand to gain a fortune. The gains rewarded to them are as follows: 1. Power 2. Money $$$, and keep in mind: These people stand to gain trillions of dollars... not just millions, not billions, but trillions. They are slyly getting away with it, and with ease. Money = Power. Pretty twisted right?! Especially because they’ve done such a great job putting their faults and fraudulent claims off on the Republicans, who regrettably remain defenseless in their silence. That is why I am here, to enlighten, inform, and to change the way you all see conservatism. I will prove that conservatism, at its core, is not just a philosophy for govt, but a philosophy for life; and for truly living.
Continue reading “Is Your Personal Quest for Self-Righteousness More Important than your Country?”


With the most sincere intentions, I will now share with you all, the discoveries made by a curious prelaw student/ congressional intern, the following evidence and sources incorporated into the piece were stumbled upon through both privileged access to records, and through having simply inquired questions via google search. The results I have collected are not fabricated, nor biased in any way. In fact, I was hoping the answers to my inquiries and suspicions, to be far less disturbing. However, I seem to have digressed…
so, without further due—

Let’s begin clearing some seriously common misconceptions up, for they are popular in belief, but should once and for all be categorized and classified as myths, and nothing more. For the sake of this great nation, I present an abstract filled with truths wishing to promote justice for all:


America has always been a melting pot. We are a nation founded by people from all over the world who came here seeking a better life for themselves and their families. So why is immigration such a hot-button issue? To be sure, it has often been steeped in bitter controversy at various points throughout our history. Certain ethnic groups have bravely borne the brunt of suspicion and hostility — and proven their ability to become good, patriotic Americans. But today, the issue seems to have taken on a harder edge. Why?

I will argue the obvious, yet almost always over looked hoax, to ever be told in the history of the world. The greatest fairy tale passed down through the ages, the most significant lie fed to a trusting culture over and over again, whose lies are buried deep within deranged misconceptions that remain uncovered. The truth is blamed on the opposition, a rival so to speak. It is hindered well by a people, a mindset, and a political party, in order to cover the tracks of their evil intentions and doings. Whilst bringing forth tall tales of deception, these clever Stalins and Hitlers continue to subtly mold into the unquestioning minds of Americans living in the past, present, and in the probable future, a distortion which is their reality. After much heavy research, I wish to bring all of the findings collected: the misconstrued evidence I have come to stumble upon, the documents hidden beneath a distorted history, the happenings behind the closed doors shall now be revealed in my arguments, built with facts. I contest that this twisted trick has been pushed so thoroughly upon the masses through all of our major outlet sources, which are all, by the way, involved in the hoax; it is the biggest scandal known to man, and sadly, is what has caused many to fall short of their desired reality. To the confused, the misled, the young, old, and ignorant, I give you:

A History Lesson Unveiled: To be read with an open mind….

As we all know, anything and everything will always fall short of perfection. Knowing this, how much sense does it make to compare America to Utopia? 

No matter what, America will always fall short of the standard of the garden of Eden. With this in mind, you are now able to grasp the significance of this world’s greatest contribution to man kind. 


For decades the American Progressive Left has used the academic tool of “Deconstruction” to implement false narratives through contradicting claims revolving around the false messages which suggest Utopian standards be incorporated into U.S. laws to resolve burdens set by America’s democratic governing system. In reality, such lies are disguised as political claims to enslave society and are being used as a sledge hammer utilized by U.S. Propaganda to bludgeon nearly every institution, icon, history and narrative of the United States. They’ve been very successful, convincing many that America is the cause of suffering around the world, and that America’s capitalist wealth is stolen from native peoples everywhere
America has been good for immigrants, and immigrants have been good for America. Our nation’s principles and its system of equal justice and economic freedom invite all those seeking opportunity and the blessings of liberty. The immigrants that come to America have always played an important role in our history-strengthening our social capital, deepening our national patriotism, and expanding our general economy.

Over the past several decades, however, immigra­tion policy has become confused and unfocused to the point that there is widespread and deepening concern that our current policies regarding immigration are not working. Poorly designed policies and weak enforcement of immigration laws have led to disturb­ing vulnerabilities in our security. Millions of illegal immigrants in our country believe the core principle of the rule of law and belittle the legal naturalization process. Continued large-scale immigration without effective assimilation threatens social cohesion and America’s civic culture and common identity.

As many of us now know, four years ago, we tried to blow the whistle on Obama and expose a side of him that people didn’t know. He wasn’t just an amateur, someone who didn’t know what was going on. He actually wanted to see a shrinking of American prosperity and power. And I was not mistaken in my personal predictions about Obama. And here we are. Knocking on socialism’s door. And I think the Obama described by many hardworking, honest Americans, including myself, is what the Obama admin. has turned out to be. Because there’s a whole narrative here, the Democratic Party is the party of the little guy. It’s the party of progress. It’s the party of abolitionism and equal rights and equal opportunity and women.

However, if you stop to take a look at American history, you will soon discover the true intentions of the Democratic party. It seems that these Dems buried their truths, and not very long after their crimes against humanity were about to be put to light, they decided to stoop to shockingly low ends in avoiding persecution. Their response to being caught is quite mind boggling, terrifying, and embarrassingly obvious. SO OBVIOUS, EVEN I admittedly questioned myself and wondered how I could not have questioned this sooner. The answers I found have led me to conclude a that this concept, this history, this eye opening event may be the most over looked, ever, to date.

And the damage it would have on the democrats and the party they embrace so loudly, would be everlasting, and permanent, if exposed.

A secret so well kept, it is not just buried in the media, it’s buried in academia. Our professors, and our broadcasters promote a kind of false narrative out there. Constant lies are being spread through America’s major outlets- to the people, for the people, and by the people. And that’s all young people are exposed to.

I am here to bring this secret to light. For the people, and for the sake of our beautiful nation. People are gullible, typical Americans living in the 21st century don’t understand what they’re dealing with. They have no idea.

Furthermore, I am going to tell a new story about the party system in America. I wish to bring to light what your professors and teachers are trying so hard to hinder you from.  A rebirth of the true, documented events that happened the Civil War. People think the Civil War was a war simply between the North and the South. And the South was the pro-slavery side. The North was the antislavery side.

But the northern Democrats, led by Stephen Douglas were defenders of slavery. This lie of an unsupported, surprisingly unquestioned tale the democrats continue to feed American citizens. It amazes me how this “BIG SWITCH” lie, is rarely questioned. Just by looking back at the facts of history, you see right away, that this war was not so much a North/South divide, it was a divide between the Republican and the Democratic Party.

And the Democratic Party, both in the north and in the south, staunchly defended and sought to protect slavery. Now, of course, part of the narrative we often deal with is something along the lines of, “Oh, yes, that’s how things used to be. But we Democrats got really enlightened, and we got really smart. And now we’re the good guys. And all the Dixiecrats and all the old slavery and segregation guys became Republicans.” That is part of the official narrative. The one that has been molded into young America, and really, the majority of Americans today. I believe that not only is it my moral duty, but it is crucial to the survival of the West, that I officially speak out to lift the misconstrued veils that are currently in place, working to complete the mission of the liberal agenda. In particular, it needs to be addressed and put to light before the next presidential election.

Abraham Lincoln was not a Democrat, even though they want to say so.

When you look at Schindler’s List, it’s happening all over again now with the Christians in the Middle East.

When we’re looking at the things that are coming, at the future state of our country and its inhabitants, I am at the critical point where I truly believe we’ve missed all the exits. We’re going to pay a very heavy price. I don’t know what that entails, but we’re going to pay a very heavy price. And not just me or my loved ones, the entire western world.

And the entire world.

Because America brought something new into the world. And it’s made the world a lot better. It’s almost impossible to envision the 20th century without America, what would have happened to World War II. What would have happened to the Cold War? And I think Americans don’t realize that for the last 65 years, they’ve been living in a privileged position, in which American prosperity, American power, the American passport is better than anybody else’s passport. So once that goes away, history shows that it never comes back.


“O, it is excellent to have a giant’s strength; but it is tyrannous to use it like a giant.”

―William Shakespeare


“The creation of the United States of America is the greatest of all human adventures. No other national story holds such tremendous lessons, for the American people themselves and for the rest of mankind.”


-Paul Johnson


The primary characteristics of the great American narrative—individual liberty, personal responsibility, respect for private property, and the desire to “avoid entangling alliances”—have long served as the glue that binds the nation together, but a new ethic of entitlement, dependence, collective responsibility, and a desire to export democracy through a variety of means—to include force—is replacing that narrative. In the slow turn from American exceptionalism and the great American narrative toward the victim narrative, domestic and foreign affairs have suffered greatly. With the United States facing long-term challenges in economic and foreign affairs that are certain to prove difficult to solve, it is finally time to reject the worldview that has led to the nation’s current condition.


The way we were

In order to escape their truly a wretched pas, modern Democrats have adopted as an article of faith the bedtime story that, thanks to Tricky Dick Nixon’s “southern strategy,” the racists who had been the backbone of their party for the better part of a century suddenly switched to the GOP some time around 1968with the happy result that now all the racists are on the right. Ladies and Gents, A mysterious SWITCH: Simultaneously creating instant virtuousness and a clean slate, for Democrats, and only DEMOCRATS.

It’s a lie, of course. But don’t take it from me, take it from noted National review writer,  Kevin Williamson, who addressed this issue brilliantly last year:

“Worse than the myth and the cliché is the outright lie, the utter fabrication with malice aforethought, and my nominee for the worst of them is the popular but indefensible belief that the two major U.S. political parties somehow “switched places” vis-à-vis protecting the rights of black Americans, a development believed to be roughly concurrent with the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the rise of Richard Nixon. That Republicans have let Democrats get away with this mountebankery is a symptom of their political fecklessness, and in letting them get away with it the GOP has allowed itself to be cut off rhetorically from a pantheon of Republican political heroes, from Abraham Lincoln and Frederick Douglass to Susan B. Anthony, who represent an expression of conservative ideals as true and relevant today as it was in the 19th century. Perhaps even worse, the Democrats have been allowed to rhetorically bury their Bull Connors, their longstanding affiliation with the Ku Klux Klan, and their pitiless opposition to practically every major piece of civil-rights legislation for a century.”

As Kevin goes on to point out:

“If the parties had in some meaningful way flipped on civil rights, one would expect that to show up in the electoral results in the years following the Democrats’ 1964 about-face on the issue. Nothing of the sort happened: Of the 21 Democratic senators who opposed the 1964 act, only one would ever change parties. Nor did the segregationist constituencies that elected these Democrats throw them out in favor of Republicans: The remaining 20 continued to be elected as Democrats or were replaced by Democrats. It was, on average, nearly a quarter of a century before those seats went Republican. If southern rednecks ditched the Democrats because of a civil-rights law passed in 1964, it is strange that they waited until the late 1980s and early 1990s to do so.”

And yet this myth persists — in fact, it’s just about the only response today’s Democrats have to their own sordid history: pinning it on the other guy. It makes them profoundly uncomfortable that among the 21 who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can be found Albert Arnold Gore, Sr., the founder of the Hillbilly Dynasty; Robert “KKK” Byrd, the Conscience of the Senate; and Sleepin’ Sam Ervin of Watergate fame.

Just for laughs, let’s take a look at the electoral maps for 1968 (Nixon-Humphrey), 1972 (Nixon-McGovern), 1976 (Carter-Ford), and 1992 (Clinton-Bush) to see how the South voted.

First, 1968, as the Vietnam War approached its high-water mark and the antiwar movement was starting to roll:


1968: still semi-solid

Nixon picked up some of the states of the Old Confederacy, largely because of their pro-military tradition and support for the war. “Wallace,” for those of you born yesterday, was Democrat George Wallace, a rabid segregationist who founded the American Independent Party and ran for president on its ticket. He won 13 percent of the popular vote, and carried five states in the Deep South for a total of 46 electoral votes.

Four years later, Nixon faced the first modern Democratic Party presidential candidate, George McGovern, who ran on a “Come Home, America” platform, and on whose campaign many of today’s radicals cut their teeth. Two items of note in the linked video clip: Missouri Senator Tom Eagleton was McGovern’s first running mate, who got dumped by the Compassion Party after it came out that he had been hospitalized for clinical depression and had undergone shock therapy. The other is McGovern’s extensive quote from “This Land is Your Land,” a hit for Peter, Paul and Mary written by the communist fellow-traveler, Woody Guthrie.


1972: the Cod stands alone

Yes, the South voted for the Republican — but so did every other state except for Massachusetts, which was the first indication of just how far gone the Bay State already was.

Four years later, Nixon was in San Clemente in the aftermath of Watergate, and a Southern governor named Jimmy Carter, whose only claim to the White House was that he was not RMN, was running against the Accidental President, Jerry Ford:


1976: you can go home again

Yes, twelve years after the Solid South supposedly flipped to the GOP, here it was, back again, helping to elevate a native son past the Michigander. The two Reagan wipeouts of 1980 and 1984 began the alignment of the South with the GOP — but it was partly reversed by Bill Clinton in 1992:


1992: Back to Bubba


The Republican ascendancy in Dixie is associated with the rise of the southern middle class, the increasingly trenchant conservative critique of Communism and the welfare state, the Vietnam controversy and the rise of the counterculture, law-and-order concerns rooted in the urban chaos that ran rampant from the late 1960s to the late 1980s, and the incorporation of the radical Left into the Democratic party. Individual events, especially the freak show that was the 1968 Democratic convention, helped solidify conservatives’ affiliation with the Republican party. Democrats might argue that some of these concerns — especially welfare and crime — are “dog whistles” or “code” for race and racism, but this criticism is shallow in light of the evidence and the real saliency of those issues among U.S. voters of all backgrounds and both parties for decades. Indeed, Democrats who argue that the best policies for black Americans are those that are soft on crime and generous with welfare are engaged in much the same sort of cynical racial calculation President Johnson was practicing when he informed skeptical southern governors that his plan for the Great Society was “to have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.” Johnson’s crude racism is, happily, largely a relic of the past, but his strategy endures.

To be thorough, let us conclude with the beginning of the end for the democratic party. According to Alexander Hamilton’s personal diaries and letters, one can make the assumption that the ways of the liberal party date back to the early years of America’s founding. Shortly after the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Washington would bid his farewell to the country, stepping down as president; Hamilton would run for the presidency; and Burr would form a unified resistance against Alexander Hamilton and his followers; this promoted the movement of the anti-federalists who would later protest against federalists that believed in the reestablishment of a monarchy and total government rule.

Those who subscribed to Hamilton’s vision of a strong federal government had long been known as Federalists; anti-Federalists who organized in opposition to them chose to call themselves Republicans, a sly insinuation that Federalists were wealthy aristocrats who were secretly conspiring to convert the new republic into a monarchy.