Gag Rule
A rule, regulation, or law that prohibits debate or discussion of a particular issue.
Between 1836 and 1844, the U.S. House of Representatives adopted a series of resolutions and rules that banned petitions calling for the abolition of slavery.
Known as gag rules, these measures effectively tabled antislavery petitions without submitting them to usual House procedures. Public outcry over the gag rules ultimately aided the antislavery cause, and the fierce House debate concerning their future anticipated later conflicts over slavery.
The submission of petitions to Congress has been a feature of the U.S. political system ever since its inception. The first amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees “the right of the people … to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
First used in England, petitions have been considered an important means for the people to communicate grievances to their representatives or other public officials.
When the first gag rule was instituted in 1836, House protocol required that the first thirty days of each session of Congress be devoted to the reading of petitions from constituents.
After those thirty days, petitions were read in the House every other Monday. Each petition was read aloud, printed, and assigned to an appropriate committee, which could choose to address or ignore it.
This traditional procedure was halted in 1835, when the House began to receive a large number of petitions advocating the abolition of slavery. Many of the petitions were organized by the American Anti-Slavery Society, which had formed in 1833.
Southern representatives, many of whom were slave owners and entertained no thoughts of abolishing slavery, were outraged by the antislavery petitions.
In December 1835, southerners, uniting with northern Democrats, won a vote to table a petition that called for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia.
Breaking established precedent, the pro-slavery faction also won a vote to deny the petition its usual discussion, printing, and referral to committee.
This procedure for the “gagging” of abolition petitions was made into a formal resolution by the House on May 26, 1836: “All petitions, memorials, resolutions, propositions, or papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatsoever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without being either printed or referred, be laid on the table and … no further action whatever shall be had thereon.”
The resolution incited strong opposition from many northerners, who perceived it as a violation of their time-honored civil rights. John Quincy Adams, a former president and now a representative from Massachusetts, emerged as the leader of an effort to revoke the new resolution. John C. Calhoun (D-S.C.), although a member of the Senate rather than the House, orchestrated the battle to preserve it.
The pro-slavery faction succeeded in renewing the gag resolution, which expired at the end of each session of Congress, in both sessions of the Twenty-fifth Congress (1837–39). On January 28, 1840, it succeeded again when it won a vote to turn the resolution into House Rule 21 (in later versions, Rules 23 and 25):
No petition, memorial, resolution, or other paper praying the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, or any State or Territory, or the slave trade between the States or territories of the United States, in which it now exists, shall be received by this House, or entertained in any way whatever.
As a formal House rule rather than a resolution, the gag rule was now a permanent part of House procedure and did not have to be renewed by vote each session.
This new gag rule provoked even stronger opposition. Whereas the previous gag resolution tabled antislavery petitions after they were received, the new gag rule did not allow petitions to be received.
As a result of these changes, northerners who had previously supported the gag now joined Adams in opposing it. Several years later, on December 3, 1844, those opposed to the gag rule finally succeeded in rescinding it.
In view of recent activities within the US Congress, I have to ask the question, “Have we lost the ability to govern our country?”
We no longer have the gag rule formally in place, but I believe it is still alive and well at both the Federal and State level.
In this age of political correctness, our lawmakers are no longer willing to discuss controversial issues, for fear of reprisal by groups representing gun control, pro and anti abortion, religious freedom, LGBT, various ethnic groups, illegal immigrants, the list goes on and on.
Some may consider this a huge leap on my part, but I contend that we are right back where we were when the gag orders of the 1800’s were put in place to save our politicians from having to take a stand on the issue of slavery.
Don’t believe me?
Let’s look at several recent issues on both the federal and state levels.
First, the federal level.
House lawmakers on March 7 passed a watered-down resolution meant to condemn anti-Semitic remarks by Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar. The final resolution, approved by a vote of 407–23, was expanded to include other forms of bias and does not include Omar’s name.
Omar, a freshman Democrat representing Minnesota, doubted the allegiance of Jewish-Americans to the United States and refused to offer an apology. Efforts to control the damage from the backlash have split the Democratic Party, with the far-left Congressional Progressive Caucus defending Omar and centrist Democrats racing to allay concerns from Jewish colleagues.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on March 7 that a new version of the resolution was expanded to “speak out against anti-Semitism, anti-Islamophobia, anti-white supremacy and all the forms that it takes.” The speaker added that it is up to Omar to “explain” the remarks.
In other words, no one in Congress is willing to risk offending their Muslim constituents.
Illegal Immigration
In judging whether immigration reform will succeed, it’s helpful to know why so many past attempts by Congress and the White House to change the system have failed. Here’s a timeline of the major attempts to deal with illegal immigration and why they didn’t make the cut.
* The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986: The amnesty law of 1986 passed through Congress and was signed by President Ronald Reagan, but it is largely considered a failure. The legislation was meant to tighten border security and crack down on employers hiring undocumented immigrants, while offering amnesty to those already in the country illegally.
Three million immigrants were legalized, but the law did not slow illegal immigration or create a framework to deal with it going forward.
“For 20 years our country has done basically nothing to enforce the 1986 legislation against either the employers who hired illegal immigrants or those who crossed our borders illegally to work for them,” former Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano wrote in 2007.
* 1996: Under President Clinton, most reform was aimed at reducing immigration amid rising anti-immigrant sentiment in the country. But the backlash against strict reform led many of the harshest measures to be rolled back, meaning that ultimately little changed.
Attempts at harsher measures, such as barring undocumented immigrants from public schools and limiting legal immigrants’ access to health and welfare services, were watered down.
2000: President Clinton pushed for amnesty for hundreds of thousands of immigrants left in legal limbo by a technical screw-up involving the 1986 law and offered a path to citizenship for hundreds of thousands of Central Americans. Republicans blocked that effort, and mindful of electoral concerns, passed their own legislation addressing the 1986 issue and family members of legal residents.
2004-2007: President Bush hoped to appeal to both business owners and Hispanic voters with a comprehensive overhaul, but he was stymied by his own party.
Bush began pushing for a guest worker program in 2004. An early attempt by Sens. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) and Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) died a quick death, in part because of election year politics.
2010: Like Bush, President Obama was caught between Hispanic voters and the GOP. In 2009 he called immigration reform a priority but acknowledged that there was too much on his plate to get it done soon.
Obama himself acknowledged that “there may not be an appetite” for immigration reform that year.
Immigration reform has suffered from the same few problems for years. Business interests and labor interests have to find a way to reconcile their disagreements. Conservatives who want enforcement first — or enforcement alone — have to be placated. Electoral concerns push lawmakers one way and then the other.
Optimistic advocates argue that the calculus has now changed. Protests in support of the DREAM Act (another immigration initiative prone to failure) has brought national attention to the plight of young undocumented students.
In other words, no one in Congress wants to alienate the Hispanic vote.
Abortion
A bill that would have required medical care to any infant born alive after an abortion has recently failed to pass the Senate.
The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, written by Senator Ben Sasse (R) of Nebraska, would have also made any health care practitioner present at the time of the failed abortion “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence [they] would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.”
Under the act, a health care practitioner who failed to provide aid to the infant would be given a fine, imprisoned or both.
“Condemning infanticide should be a unanimous vote. It’s a basic human rights issue,” Sasse said in an interview on Fox News.
President Donald Trump responded to the failed bill, saying, “The Democrat position on abortion is now so extreme that they don’t mind executing babies after birth.”
He also called it, “one of the most shocking votes in the history of Congress,” and, “If there is one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting the lives of innocent babies.”
The final vote on The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act was 53-44. It would have needed 60 to pass.
The bill was supported by all Senate Republicans, but was rejected by all but three Senate Democrats.
Those three Democratic “yes” votes came from Robert P. Casey Jr. of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin III of West Virginia, and Doug Jones of Alabama.
Three Republicans did not vote, citing scheduling issues.
Many who opposed the bill said that it was unneeded and interfered with a woman’s medical rights.
Planned Parenthood President Dr. Leana Wen also responded to the bill, saying that it “was not based in science or reality, but instead is another attack by the Trump-Pence administration and the Republican leadership on healthcare.”
Wen also said that the Born-Alive Bill, “would have singled out physicians who perform abortions and potentially expose them to harsh criminal penalties based on lies and misinformation.”
In other words, no one in Congress wants to take a stand on the abortion issue for fear of alienating votes, just like Congress did on the issue of slavery.
Now to the state level.
Jussie Smollett
It all started after midnight on January 29, the night Empire star Jussie Smollett says he was attacked on a Chicago street. The 36-year-old told police that he was beaten outside of the Loews Hotel by two white men in ski masks who yelled racist and homophobic slurs, and championed “MAGA country,” as they tied a rope around his neck and poured bleach on him.
Due to the serious nature of the allegations, the Chicago police immediately began investigating the incident as a possible hate crime. They even discovered a threatening letter that was reportedly sent to the actor prior to the alleged attack. It contained anti-gay rhetoric and a mysterious white powder.
As news broke of the shocking incident, many celebrities and politicians rallied behind the openly gay actor, both in the press and on social media. Presidential candidate Kamala Harris even called the incident a “modern-day lynching,” while Smollett appeared on a television interview on ABC with Robin Roberts, where he reiterated that what he told police was unequivocally true.
It wasn’t until early February, when investigators uncovered a blurry video of two men walking near the supposed crime scene that the case took a very unexpected turn, one that would eventually cast suspicion on the actor himself. On February 20, a Cook County, Illinois, grand jury found probable cause that Smollett staged the attack. The young actor was arrested, charged with felony disorderly conduct, and released on bond shortly before being written off the hit show Empire. Smollett was also slapped with 16 more felony counts after allegedly lying to police about a hate crime.
As we now know, all charges against the actor were dropped as of March 26 by the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office. While the prosecutors have not revealed why they dropped the felony charges, they said the decision was made after reviewing all of the facts in light of Smollett’s forfeiture of his $10,000 bond. Usually when charges are dropped, the bond is returned to the defendant; in this case, Smollett agreed to give the bond he paid to the city, which is unprecedented.
“After reviewing all of the facts and circumstances of the case,” the state’s attorney’s office said in a statement, “ including Mr. Smollett’s volunteer service in the community, and agreement to forfeit his bond to the City of Chicago, we believe this outcome is a just disposition and appropriate resolution to this case.”
As a result, Smollett will not face trial. He is a free man with an expunged record.
Again, the fact that Jussie Smallet is a gay black man and this case jumped immediately to a hate crime, it has tied the hands of all those involved.
Chick Filet ban in Texas
The Texas Attorney’s General’s office has launched an investigation to determine if the San Antonio City Council violated the First Amendment by barring Chick-fil-A, a franchise regarded by some as being opposed to same-sex marriage, from opening a restaurant in the city’s airport, the Texas Tribune reported.
The City Council voted 6-4 last week to prevent the nationwide chain of chicken restaurants from setting up shop at the San Antonio International Airport.
The action triggered a letter to city officials from Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton.
Chick-Fil-A, a national franchise with locations in the New Orleans area, is known for its leaders’ staunch Christian and conservative views and has been linked to groups that oppose the legalization of same-sex marriage. Its restaurants are closed on Sunday.
The company says its corporate purpose is to “to glorify God by being a faithful steward of all that is entrusted to us and to have a positive influence on all who come into contact with Chick-fil-A,”.
San Antonio City Councilman Roberto Treviño introduced a plan to approve the airport’s plan to permit eight new vendors to open in one of the terminals, but swap out Chick-fil-A for another vendor. Treviño told the council that he could not get behind a company with “a legacy of anti-LGBTQ behavior,” according to the newspaper.
Here again, we see that local politicians are handcuffed by political correctness.
Gun control in Colorado
A Sheriff in Colorado told CNN he would rather go to jail than to enforce the state’s proposed Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPOs), commonly referred to as “red flag laws.” If House Bill 19-1177 passes, the law would allow a family member, roommate or law enforcement officer to petition a judge so police can temporarily seize a person’s firearms if they’re deemed a threat to themselves or others.
“Are you willing to sit in your own jail to avoid enforcing this law?” a CNN reporter asked Weld County Sheriff Steve Reams, the Greeley Tribune reported.
His response was perfect.
“Well obviously no sheriff wants to be confined in their own jail, but if that’s what it takes to get this bill ironed out, then I guess that’s a sacrifice I’ll be forced to make,” Reams replied. “The worst way to bring attention to it is for me to be put in that position, but I’ll do that before I’ll violate somebody’s constitutional rights.”
The sheriff is challenging the law in court to keep the bill from becoming a reality.
“We’re working hard to try to figure out a mechanism to get this into the courts before anybody is harmed by it,” Reams said. “Unfortunately, someone has to be damaged by it first. It comes down to whether I want to take this to court for violating somebody’s rights or for me refusing to enforce a court order.”
But Reams isn’t the only sheriff who opposes the bill. More than half of Colorado’s 64 counties have declared themselves a “Second Amendment Sanctuary County,” meaning their sheriffs refuse to enforce these types of gun control laws.
If the bill passes and sheriffs, like Reams, fail to enforce a court order under the red flag law, they can be held in contempt. They could be fined indefinitely or arrest them.
Rep. Tom Sullivan, whose son was killed in the Aurora shooting in 2012 is one of the bill’s co-sponsors, along with Democratic House Majority Leader Alec Garnett.
According to Garnett, he “won’t lose any sleep” if sheriffs have to sit in jail for failing to comply with the bill, should it become law.
“What I’m going to lose sleep over is, if that’s the choice that they make and someone loses their life, someone in crisis goes on a shooting spree, (or) someone commits suicide” because a gun wasn’t taken away, Garnett told CNN.
So, once again. Politicians at the state level risk losing voters based on their position when it comes to the 2nd amendment. They are damned if they do, damned if they don’t. Just like Congress in the 1800’s dealing with the issue of slavery.
Folks, I really hope I am wrong here. I would hate to think we have lost our ability to govern ourselves. We all know what happened as a result of Congress failing to address the issue of slavery and state’s rights.
I pray we don’t see similar results in our future due to our lack of courage in tackling the tough issues we are faced with today.