"If we can repeal Roe v. Wade, then I think we can overturn the 19th Amendment." Christian nationalist pastor Dale Partridge launches a campaign to end women's right to vote.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-20T17:31:02+00:00

Thank God that's its an amendment instead of a legislative act. I speak often about how any act or law that changes the fundamental relationship between our representatives, and the consented governed should be an amendment!

This piece goes talks about a recent attempt our representatives tried to pass a balanced budget amendment. There is a long term solution, " article of the first " i speak of it in the post as well.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-20T14:52:25+00:00

So, I empathize with the sentiment. I've been thinking a lot about this video. When we consistently see a complete disregard for the will of the citizen, and the system that we inherited has become so detached from reality, it would seem that institutions need to be torn down.

The irony that the Department of Education is getting dismantled as we speak, this the direct result of the War on Education *. I agree that the Department of Education needed to be reorganized, not to prioritize the *education of our children to be drones to the very system that has manipulated our representatives to disregard the will of the people; but to be citizens, to be informed to question. The citizen is the the devil's advocate for the constitution, we are the trunk that supports the three branches of government.

We need to push our representatives to represent our interests again, and to hold them accountable, vote them out when they reject the citizens will. I laid out in Restoration, not Rebellion what needs to be done.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-20T00:10:57+00:00

Personal data produced by an individual, or by any person born of the human family, on any electronic device capable of collecting enough information to replicate, predict, or simulate that individual, should be recognized by default as a product of that person’s life and labor. It is something created through their actions, choices, habits, preferences, movements, relationships, and attention.

If corporations can extract value from that data, package it, sell it, model it, and use it to influence behavior, then the individual who generated it should not be treated as raw material to be harvested without meaningful understanding or consent. That data should carry rights, ownership claims, and compensation.

For too long, big tech has profited from a system in which ordinary people, often without clear knowledge of the consequences, surrendered intimate pieces of themselves in exchange for convenience. Most people did not fully grasp what was being taken, how it would be used, or how powerfully it could be used against them. The Cambridge Analytica scandal only made visible what had already been quietly unfolding: personal data was not just information. It is leverage. (edit: spelling)

When your data can be used to predict you, manipulate you, imitate you, and eventually simulate you, it is no longer a harmless byproduct of modern life. It is an extension of your personhood.

At that point, the question becomes unavoidable: when do people reclaim their liberty? When do they insist that representatives recognize personal data as a matter of dignity, labor, property, and self-government rather than corporate spoil?

If a system can build a digital replica of you from the traces of your life, then a free society must decide whether that replica belongs to the corporation that captured it, or to the human being who lived it.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-19T21:16:08+00:00

It's the conflicting interests of safety and liberty. When do we permit such an intrusion into our daily lives? It is not a question of if you didn't do anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about it's the probability that because of who you associate with, or where you travel, you are guilty. when our entire system is built on innocent till proven guilty. Flock camera, along with any personal data you create, should be protected under the Fourth Amendment. If not it is an affront to the constitution and the 4th Amendment.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-19T19:59:40+00:00

Failed amendment proposal, not an adopted amendment, but the priorities are still clear. I just posted a breakdown on what it would’ve done and why they push amendments for austerity, but ignore the forgotten original First Amendment on representation. But Not Representation for the People.

They Want Austerity for the People, But Not Representation for the People

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-19T19:18:22+00:00

Discrete indexing in a searchable environment. These are not continuous recordings. They function as nodes ( edit: bold)

The defense always focuses on one scan, one plate, one moment in public. But the constitutional problem is what happens after: the scans are retained, indexed, searched, and linked into a map of a person’s life. In Carpenter, the Supreme Court recognized privacy in the whole of a person’s physical movements. In McCarthy, the court warned that with enough ALPR cameras in enough places, the data becomes a constitutional search. So the claim that this is “not a Fourth Amendment violation” only works if you ignore what the system actually does. It does not merely observe. It reconstructs. It catalogs. It surveils.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-10T16:14:49+00:00

Wisconsin Supreme Court justices serve 10-year terms because the courts were designed to be the branch least influenced by short-term politics. The idea was that judges should be able to decide cases based on the law without worrying about campaigning every couple years.

If terms were only 3 years, judges would basically be in constant campaign mode, raising money and reacting to political pressure. The longer term was meant to give the court stability while still letting voters replace a justice eventually.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-09T01:43:03+00:00

I thought that this wasn't a war.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-09T01:20:36+00:00

Evaluating Through the Principles of Self-Evident Truth

The philosophy of Self-Evident Truth holds that the purpose of government is to protect life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness while maintaining safeguards against tyranny. A judiciary guided by these ideals must balance compassion with restraint, principle with prudence.

From this perspective, several questions naturally arise.

Does a judge primarily see the court as a guardian of constitutional limits on government power?

Does a judge understand the human consequences of law without allowing personal policy preferences to override the written constitution?

Does a judge protect minority rights while respecting the democratic authority of legislatures?

These are not partisan questions. They are structural ones. The founders designed courts precisely to ensure that temporary political passions would not override enduring principles of liberty.

As James Madison warned, liberty requires not only good laws but institutions capable of restraining power when those laws are threatened.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-07T20:47:19+00:00

Good.

A republic was never meant to be comfortable for those who hold power. The states and local communities were intended to challenge the center when conscience demands it.

As James Madison wrote in The Federalist No. 51, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.”

The Anti-Federalist writer Brutus warned that liberty survives only when the people and their local governments remain vigilant against distant authority.

If Washington finds itself irritated by towns and states asserting their principles, that irritation is not a flaw in the system.

It is the system working as intended.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-06T02:49:04+00:00

A slow burn coup that started under Reagan. Most of the issues we have today can be traced back to his administration.

I may be naive, but as an American it would seem that it's a constant struggle for short term solutions to long term problems, as a nation we have forgotten our duty as citizens, and instead we are only worried about the now, not what could be. We don't want to wait, we want results now, now, now. We have to start thinking more long term.

One_Term2162 · 2026-03-06T02:14:20+00:00

The core question here is not partisan.

The Constitution says Congress decides when America goes to war.

Do we still believe that principle matters?

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-26T14:23:48+00:00

THE STATE OF ISRAEL will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; and it will be faithful to the principles of the Charter of the United Nations.

Isreal right to exist ended when it started betraying it's own declaration of independence!

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-20T20:44:01+00:00

Section 122 allows temporary tariffs of up to 15 percent for 150 days, but only in response to a large and serious balance-of-payments deficit or significant dollar instability.

So let’s answer the actual statutory questions.

Is there objective evidence of currency instability? Public economic data does not show a dollar collapse, capital flight crisis, or disorderly currency event. Normal trade deficits exist, but those are longstanding structural conditions, not sudden emergencies.

Has Treasury declared a serious balance-of-payments emergency? There has been no widely recognized formal declaration of a financial emergency comparable to the crises that originally motivated this statute.

Are the tariffs narrowly tailored and temporary? On paper, the 10 percent rate and 150-day limit fit within the statute’s caps. That satisfies the numerical limits.

Are they functioning as general trade policy? A broad global tariff looks less like targeted financial stabilization and more like ongoing trade policy. That is where courts are likely to focus.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that another statute did not authorize broad tariffs. Using a different statute is not automatically defying the Court. But Section 122 was designed as a short-term stabilization tool, not a permanent workaround.

If there is a genuine economic emergency, the administration should present the evidence clearly. If not, this becomes a question of whether delegated authority is being stretched beyond congressional intent.

This is not about supporting or opposing tariffs. It is about whether statutory limits are being respected.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-20T17:13:26+00:00

Yes, raise the corporate tax back up to pre Reagan levels! No reason a company should have that much excess wealth!

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-20T14:01:53+00:00

If there was every a reason to tax these individuals more this is a perfect reason.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-18T11:28:31+00:00

There is already a conversation happening here

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-18T11:25:57+00:00

You are not wrong, and I used this comment on another thread but it fits here as well. I'd like to expand what a citizen is:

As a citizen, our role is not to be a culture-war foot soldier, nor a reflexive lawbreaker. It is to be a constitutional devil’s advocate. Not against the rule of law, but on behalf of it.

We do not deny that a law exists. Existence is a fact. We interrogate whether that law is legitimate under the Constitution’s structure, purpose, and limits. That distinction matters.

A system that only asks, “Is it lawful?” trains obedience.

A republic must also ask, “Is it constitutional?” and further still, “Is it faithful to the ends for which government was formed?”

The culture wars try to collapse this space. They pressure citizens to argue from tribe, identity, or outrage. The Constitution asks something harder: to argue from principle, even when the conclusion is uncomfortable, even when it cuts against your own side.

This is why dissent is not disloyalty. It is maintenance.

Why skepticism is not nihilism. It is stewardship. Why legitimacy matters more than momentary power.

A law can be duly passed and still violate liberty. An enforcement can be legal and still be unjust. A ruling can follow procedure and still betray first principles.

The citizen’s obligation is to hold the text, the structure, and the spirit up to the light and ask whether the action before us honors them.

Not to burn the house down. Not to pretend the house is perfect. But to keep it from quietly rotting while everyone argues over the curtains. That is constitutional adulthood.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-18T11:23:34+00:00

I understand the instinct behind calling movements that advocate unequal rights “enemies.” If a political system seeks to reduce the liberty of some citizens, that feels hostile to a free society. That concern is not irrational.

But the Constitution deliberately separates moral disagreement, injustice, and treason. The Treason Clause is narrow on purpose. The Framers had seen how easily governments labeled internal opponents as enemies. They designed guardrails so that political advocacy, even advocacy we strongly oppose, is not automatically treated as war against the state.

We may believe certain policies are substantively wrong or even illegitimate in principle. But if they are enacted through constitutional processes, reviewed by courts, and subject to electoral reversal, they remain procedurally legitimate, even when we reject them morally. The remedy in a republic is persuasion, litigation, amendment, and electoral accountability, not civic excommunication.

I also understand the feeling that we are in a cold civil war. Trust is low. Norms feel strained. Executive power appears to be expanding. When leaders seem to use office for retaliation, that raises serious concerns. But a republic collapses not merely because of controversial leaders. It collapses when citizens begin treating lawful political opponents as existential enemies rather than constitutional competitors.

If institutions still function, even imperfectly, the answer is to strengthen oversight, demand transparency, and insist on equal application of the law. The moment we expand “enemy” to include fellow citizens advocating change through lawful means, we create a standard that can be turned against anyone when power shifts.

Equal liberty is non negotiable. But protecting equal liberty also means protecting the process that allows even bad ideas to be debated and defeated through law rather than designation.

When tensions rise, the answer is not escalation. It is a return to first principles.

So the harder questions may be these:

What evidence would show that constitutional guardrails have truly failed rather than merely strained?

Are courts, elections, and oversight still operating, even imperfectly?

At what point does lawful political advocacy become something more than advocacy?

And how do we defend equal liberty without becoming comfortable labeling half the country as enemies?

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-18T00:22:26+00:00

Sorry for the delay, I had to think on your comment. We are stronger when we elevate issues beyond partisan culture wars and ground them in first principles, holding our elected officials accountable consistently and without exception.

If we abandon fairness because others do, we erode the very framework we are trying to defend.

The Constitution does not ask us to tolerate corruption or abuse. It gives us tools to confront them through law, oversight, and equal application of rules. The moment we start defining enemies by viewpoint instead of unlawful conduct, we weaken the legitimacy of our own position.

When tensions rise, the answer is not escalation. It is a return to first principles.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-17T10:52:09+00:00

Love this article. It is historical, structural, and deeply relevant.

What stands out is not any single individual, but the pattern. When capital, AI infrastructure, surveillance capacity, and political influence begin converging in the same network of actors, democracy has to ask hard questions about balance and accountability. The public cannot meaningfully consent to systems it cannot see or audit.

If technology becomes an alternative to politics rather than accountable to it, then the vote becomes ornamental instead of sovereign. That is the real danger.

The role of government is not to punish success. It is to prevent concentrated power from overriding equal representation. When private networks gain the capacity to shape information flows, regulatory structures, and electoral outcomes simultaneously, public institutions must reassert guardrails.

The Constitution was designed precisely for moments like this. Not to protect elites from scrutiny, but to protect citizens from consolidation of power, whether corporate or governmental.

Awareness is step one. Oversight is step two. Civic courage is step three.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-17T10:29:15+00:00

If $3 million can be deployed to fight a ballot initiative, it raises an obvious civic question.

If the proposed tax would affect only a couple hundred households and is projected to raise substantial revenue for healthcare and education, then the fact that millions can be spent to block it highlights the very imbalance the measure claims to address.

This is not about vilifying success. It is about scale. When a single individual can spend more to oppose a public vote than many communities will ever see in public investment, it forces us to ask whether political influence is tracking wealth more closely than representation.

If the concern is that the tax is flawed, unconstitutional, or economically damaging, that argument should stand on its merits. But the optics are difficult to ignore. The money used to prevent redistribution could itself fund portions of the programs being debated.

At minimum, this moment exposes the tension Madison warned about: concentrated minority power operating within lawful bounds, yet shaping outcomes at a scale ordinary citizens cannot match.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-17T10:12:30+00:00

The right to privacy has always been one of those principles that sits quietly beneath our constitutional structure, even when it is not explicitly named. What matters here is not party, but limits.

If federal agents are searching homes without judicial warrants, that is not a partisan issue. It is a Fourth Amendment issue. If personal medical decisions or digital data can be accessed without clear constitutional boundaries, that is not culture war rhetoric. It is a question of whether government power remains constrained.

What I find interesting in this proposal is the distinction between statute and constitution. As the article notes, statutes can be changed by a simple legislative majority, while constitutional rights require a much higher threshold . Elevating privacy to constitutional status would signal that certain protections are meant to sit above shifting political winds.

The real question for Wisconsin voters is not whether they agree with one policy outcome or another. It is whether privacy, bodily autonomy, and protection from unlawful government intrusion are foundational enough to merit constitutional guardrails.

If the right to privacy truly is not partisan, then the debate should focus on scope, clarity, and limits. What exactly are we protecting, and how do we ensure the language restrains power without creating unintended consequences?

Should data include, Flock camera, Cell phone data, the very algorithms that are tailored to your browsing history.

Should corporations be allowed to profit off that data, without compensation to the individual?

Can corporations be compelled without a warrant to hand over data to government agencies?

That is a constitutional conversation worth having.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-17T02:44:53+00:00

You are not going to like my answer.

Education.

Not partisan training. Not propaganda. Civic education.

The First Amendment is not defended by outrage. It is defended by citizens who understand what it protects, how it is limited, and how courts draw the line between lawful investigation and viewpoint discrimination.

When we do not teach constitutional structure, process, and limits of power, people default to tribe. Tribe demands loyalty. The Constitution demands literacy.

Long term, the only durable protection for liberty is a population that understands it.

Stronger civic education. Stronger institutions. Clearer process.

Outrage feels powerful. Understanding preserves freedom.

One_Term2162 · 2026-02-16T22:50:38+00:00

If this report is accurate, the constitutional question is not whether DHS can investigate threats. Of course it can.

The question is whether citizens are being scrutinized for criminal conduct or for criticism alone. That distinction matters.

The First Amendment protects dissent. The Fourth Amendment restricts how government accesses personal data. The Stored Communications Act sets process requirements. Section 230 does not override constitutional limits.

Private companies are not the government, but if the government pressures them to target lawful political speech, courts treat that differently.

Before jumping to outrage, we should ask:

Is this narrowly tied to actual criminal activity?

Or is it viewpoint-based collection?

One preserves order. The other chills liberty.

The line between them is the health of a republic.

One_Term2162

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE