Calls For Justice Department ‘Independence’ Are A Sign Of GOP Weakness

The 'cycle of weaponization' will not be broken by one side dropping its weapons while the other reloads.

Saving U.S. Elections Requires Amending The Constitution, Citizen-Only Advocates Say

'The constitution does not explicitly say that only a U.S. citizen can vote in federal elections,' ACV's Avi Fortenberry said.

What All Americans Can Learn From Clarence Thomas’ Life And Record-Setting Career

While his intellect and writing have become some of Thomas' most defining qualities, they are but a few of the many reasons Americans adore him.

DOJ sues Denver over its ongoing war against the 2nd Amendment — and local Democrats aren't pleased



Denver has for decades impinged upon the Second Amendment rights of its residents.

Since 1989, the city has had a so-called "assault weapons" law on the books that now prohibits the carriage, storage, possession, manufacture, and sale of "any semiautomatic pistol or centerfire rifle, either of which have a fixed or detachable magazine with a capacity of more than fifteen rounds" and "any semiautomatic shotgun with a folding stock or a magazine capacity of more than six rounds."

'The Constitution is not a suggestion.'

According to Denver's Code of Ordinances, the city council that initially advanced the ban determined that the use of "assault weapons poses a threat to the health, safety and security of all citizens" in the city and that restrictions on law-abiding Americans' access to such firearms were both "reasonable and necessary."

The Trump Justice Department demanded in a letter last week that the city repeal the ban, underscoring that it is unconstitutional. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division said that failure to comply would likely trigger a lawsuit.

On Monday, the city's attorney, Miko Brown, wrote back to Dhillon, calling the request "baseless, irresponsible, and a clear overreach of the federal government's power."

RELATED: Why the Supreme Court nuked Colorado’s 'Must Stay Gay' law (and what to expect next)

Minh Connors/Washington Post/Getty Images

Democrat Denver Mayor Mike Johnston chimed in, characterizing the DOJ's effort to restore Denverites' rights as intimidation and claiming that the ban "has stood for 37 years because it works, it saves lives, and it reflects the values of our community."

Democrat Councilwoman Serena Gonzales-Gutierrez joined the chorus of fearmongerers, stating both that the Trump administration was trying to deprive students and families of critical "protections" and that "assault weapons take lives — that's what they're made for."

On Tuesday, the DOJ filed a lawsuit with the stated intention of vindicating "the rights of Denver citizens whose rights have been — and are continuing to be — violated."

"The Constitution is not a suggestion and the Second Amendment is not a second-class right," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement. "Denver's ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles directly violates the right to bear arms."

Citing the standard for applying the Second Amendment outlined in the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen, the government's complaint asserts that the "Ordinance is presumptively unconstitutional" and that the City of Denver "will not be able to rebut this presumption."

After noting that the Second Amendment protects firearms "typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes that are in 'common use' today" — a protection affirmed by the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia v. Heller — the complaint explains that there are at least 28 million AR-style semiautomatic rifles presently in circulation and tens of millions of law-abiding AR-style-rifle owners in the country.

In addition to the numerousness and common use of such weapons, the DOJ's complaint shreds the notion that AR-15-type rifles are the go-to choice for criminals.

When making this point, the DOJ highlighted FBI data showing that whereas there were 364 homicides known to have been committed with rifles of any type in 2019, 6,368 homicides were committed with handguns, 1,476 were committed with knives or other cutting instruments, 600 were committed with hands and feet, and 397 were committed with blunt objects.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division stated, "Law-abiding Americans, regardless of what city or state they reside in, should not have to live under threat of criminal sanction just for exercising their Second Amendment right to possess arms which are owned by tens of millions of their fellow citizens."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Don’t Overlook Justice Clarence Thomas’ Concurrence In Racial Gerrymandering Case

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court struck a major blow against race-based policymaking, holding that the law protects voters from discrimination, rather than mandating that states create racial gerrymanders as an ostensible corrective to discrimination. The decision builds on a string of cases whereby the Roberts Court has distinguished itself by rightly opposing present […]

'Maximum warfare': Democrats celebrate after Virginia decides to disenfranchise GOP voters



Democrats have in recent years likened redistricting efforts to the Holocaust, called them "a threat to democracy," and characterized them as "authoritarian." However, in the lead-up to Virginia's gerrymandering referendum, Democrats adopted a disparate view.

Presented with the opportunity to all but ensure that 10 out of the state's 11 congressional seats go to their comrades, Democrats reconstrued gerrymandering as a noble pursuit — an alleged means to "help level the playing field," a way to "restore fairness," and, in the words of Virginia Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger, a "response to what we're seeing in other states that have taken extreme measures to undermine democratic norms."

'The result of a process that's unconstitutional and illegal.'

With the help of out-of-state dark money and propagandizing by big-name liberals like former President Barack Obama, Democrats proved victorious on Tuesday in disenfranchising Republican voters in Old Dominion.

The following loaded question appeared on the April 21 ballot: "Should the Constitution of Virginia be amended to allow the General Assembly to temporarily adopt new congressional districts to restore fairness in the upcoming elections, while ensuring Virginia's standard redistricting process resumes for all future redistricting after the 2030 census?"

With over 97% of the votes counted, the Associated Press reported that 51.5% of the ballots were cast in favor of the proposal and 48.6% were cast in opposition — a difference of just over 88,700 votes.

Election Day votes, a majority of which were "no" votes, reportedly accounted for 55% of the total; early in-person votes accounted for 35% of the total; and mail-in votes accounted for 10% of the total, 72% of which were "yes" votes.

RELATED: How Spanberger managed to hit record-low approval rating in 80 days

Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images

Spanberger stated, "Virginia voters have spoken, and tonight they pushed back against a President who claims he is 'entitled' to more Republican seats in Congress."

"As we watched other states go along with those demands without voter input, Virginians refused to let that stand," continued Spanberger, who claimed when running for governor last year that she had no plans to redistrict the state. "We responded the right way: at the ballot box."

In a statement where he ironically criticized "unprecedented gerrymandering," Virginia Senate Majority Leader Scott Surovell (D) said that "fairness won. Accountability won. And the Commonwealth that gave America its Constitution has once again reminded the nation what that Constitution is for."

Obama congratulated Virginia, thanking voters "for showing us what it looks like to stand up for our democracy and fight back."

U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) excitedly announced that "House Democrats have crushed Donald Trump's national gerrymandering scheme." He added, "Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time."

Former Gov. Glenn Youngkin (R), who previously emphasized that the new map was "the result of a process that's unconstitutional and illegal," said in a statement, "Thank you to all the voters who turned out to vote against this egregious power grab. The race was much closer than the left expected because Virginians know a 10-1 map is not Virginia."

"I urge the Virginia Supreme Court to rule against this unconstitutional process that will disenfranchise millions of Virginians," added Youngkin.

There are multiple lawsuits pending before the Virginia Supreme Court regarding the legality of the constitutional amendment. Oral arguments for the cases are tentatively scheduled for Monday.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Dems Win Naked Power Grab In Virginia, Could Lose In Court On Constitutional Grounds

While the left's naked power grab may be hypocritical, partisan map-making is not the problem — legally speaking.

The founders demanded the Bill of Rights. AI also needs one.



In September 1787, the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia came to a close. Delegates had spent months debating and negotiating the structure for a new American government. When the final document was presented for signatures, most of the delegates agreed to support it. But one of the most influential figures in the room refused.

George Mason of Virginia would not sign the Constitution.

Mason’s refusal did not stem from radical opposition to the new proposed government. In fact, he played a major role in shaping America’s early political philosophy. Yet when the convention concluded, Mason believed something essential was missing. The proposed Constitution created a powerful federal government, but it contained no explicit protections for individual liberty. Without a Bill of Rights, Mason warned, citizens would have little protection against abuses of power.

If artificial intelligence is going to help shape the future of our society in profound ways, should it not also be built to respect the same freedoms that Americans have fought for since the founding of the republic?

History ultimately proved his concerns justified. Mason’s refusal helped spark the debate that led to the adoption of the Bill of Rights a few years later. His message was simple. When a new, powerful institution is created, the protection of liberty cannot be an afterthought.

A new power is emerging

More than two centuries later, we find the United States again standing at the edge of a transformative moment. Today, the institution taking shape is artificial intelligence. And this institution may end up being just as consequential to society as the shaping of the country in the late eighteenth century.

The most advanced AI systems are already beginning to shape our culture and how people access information, businesses make decisions, institutions function, and public discourse unfolds. These systems are being integrated into everything from banking and education to media and health care. In many cases, AI models act as intermediaries between humans and the world of information around them.

This development carries enormous promise. Artificial intelligence could accelerate medical research, improve productivity, and unlock scientific discoveries that once seemed impossible.

At the same time, the growing influence of AI raises an important question. What values will guide the systems that increasingly shape our society?

AI is not neutral by default. Every model reflects decisions made by its designers. The data used to train it, the rules used to filter its responses, and the priorities embedded in its algorithms all influence how it interacts with users. Beyond just answering questions and responding to prompts, these systems influence what information people encounter and how issues are understood.

In other words, the institutions building AI today are quietly creating the informational infrastructure of the future.

Where are the safeguards for freedom?

George Mason understood that powerful institutions require clear limits. His concern centered on ensuring that a strong central government would respect the rights of the people it serves.

Artificial intelligence deserves the same scrutiny.

Recent controversies surrounding AI tools have revealed how easily political or ideological assumptions can shape technological systems. A growing body of studies has found that many leading AI models tend to reflect left-leaning political assumptions in their outputs, raising concerns about viewpoint bias. Major AI platforms have faced backlash for producing historically inaccurate outputs to satisfy modern ideological expectations, as seen in widely publicized image-generation failures.

Social media platforms, powered by similar AI-driven algorithms, already curate what users see, amplifying certain viewpoints while quietly burying others. Even leaders within the AI industry have acknowledged the risk that these systems could influence public discourse in ways that are difficult for users to detect.

More egregious examples can be seen with Chinese AI models, such as DeepSeek, which have been shown to avoid or redirect discussion on topics that conflict with official government positions, reflecting the priorities of the state rather than the pursuit of truth.

Taken together, these examples demonstrate how AI can be shaped to filter reality itself, whether by governments, corporations, or the assumptions embedded by developers.

These examples illustrate a basic reality. Artificial intelligence can either serve as a tool for expanding human freedom or as an instrument for shaping and controlling public discourse and, by extension, society. The outcome will depend on the values embedded in these systems today.

A meaningful step forward would be the adoption of clear, principled guidelines for building and deploying these systems. At minimum, AI development should prioritize truth-seeking over narrative-shaping, ensuring that systems are designed to inform rather than steer users toward predetermined conclusions.

Developers should also commit to transparency in training data sources, so the public has a clearer understanding of what informs these models.

Just as important, developers should resist coercion from governments or corporations seeking to suppress lawful speech or manipulate outcomes. They should reject internal policies that seek to bury dissenting views under the vague banner of “safety,” a term that too often masks subjective judgment.

These principles may not solve every problem, but they would begin to align AI with the values of a free society.

George Mason’s warning for the AI age

George Mason refused to sign the Constitution because he believed liberty needed stronger protection before a new federal government was enacted. His insistence on a Bill of Rights helped ensure that the American experiment would endure longer by providing explicit protections for individual freedom.

The United States now faces a similar moment as artificial intelligence becomes woven into the fabric of modern life. AI will influence how people learn, communicate, and understand the world. The values guiding these systems will shape society in ways that are difficult to predict.

Before this technological infrastructure becomes fully embedded in our daily lives, it is worth asking a question that George Mason would likely recognize.

If artificial intelligence is going to help shape the future of our society in profound ways, should it not also be built to respect the same freedoms that Americans have fought for since the founding of the republic?

The founders believed liberty required clear protections before a new, powerful structure was fully unleashed. As we enter the age of artificial intelligence, their lesson remains as relevant as ever.

Clarence Thomas: Celebrate America 250 By Doing Something To Save The Country

'[T]here are too few people who are willing to do what it takes to do the right thing; to sacrifice the popularity, flattery, comfort, and security that are the purchase price for principle.'

A Supreme Court That Doesn’t Stop Birthplace Citizenship Isn’t Originalist

Originalism counts for little if justices can brush aside the historical evidence because it is inconvenient.