Far right Republican Project 2025 is mostly an illegal fantasy - most of it can’t be done at all - “Schedule F” would face legal challenges and likely be struck down
It is not possible for a president to do those things. It's based on fantasy ideas about what a president can do. Much of it is clearly illegal and much of what isn't immediately and obviously illegal is likely to be thrown out through legal challenges.
It is basically fantasy, not real, most of it is impossible.
Project 2025 is political show for the far right vote as far as I can tell. The president's role is to implement the laws enacted by Congress and interpreted by the judiciary with all that subject to the workings of the US constitution. There are many checks on the capabilities of a president.
Right now the Republican candidates for president are trying to get the majority vote amongst Republicans. To do that they need to appeal to the far right including Trump supporters.
However, whoever it is who gets selected as Republican candidate wll then have to get together a manifesto that will have broad appeal across the Republican party including moderates. At that poitn surely they de-emphasize any ideas like this.
So all this publicity about project 2025 is more to do with the primaries than what a president would be able to do or even could do. Most of it is political fantasy.
The Wikipedia article doesn’t mention any of the legal issues with the project.
It is mostly written by only three users. Articles with large numbers of editors even on controversial topics tend to be excellent on most topics. E.g. an article on Trump say. The Wikipedia checks and balances work well for such articles. The issues arise with articles with few editors. Climate change. Conspiracy theories on many topics. Vaccines etc.
Articles with few editors are often excellent but sometimes they are very poor.
This one is accurate as far as it goes but focuses mainly on describing what the project says. There is almost nothing about legal issues with it which make most of it impossible to ever be legislated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_2025
It is mostly written by just three users. 40.5 + 26.1 + 26 = 92.6% of the text written by just three users of Wikipedia.
https://xtools.wmcloud.org/articleinfo/en.wikipedia.org/Project_2025
UPDATE - SOME OF THE ISSUES HAVE BEEN FIXED BUT NOT ALL IN THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE
The talk page says:
QUOTE This article seems to have to been written entirely by individuals who oppose Project 2025 and solely includes information about it's downsides and Trump's failures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Project_2025
It still though doesn’t present the issues I mentioned that are sourced to very high quality sources. It still does not mention
Biden’s executive order to make Schedule F easier to challenge legally
That Schedule F was removed before it could be challenged
Doesn’t mention any expert who calls the whole project a “fantasy”
I would still call it a baised poorly sourced article in much need of improvement.
And I think a good editor could find a way of explaining that it is not possible to install Trump as a dictator without changing the US Constitution in a way that doesn’t count as original research under Wikipedia’s rules. I’ve seen people say things similar in other articles, high-profile articles.
It is like it is permitted to say that the Eiffel Tower is in Paris without needing to cite a source saying the Eiffel Tower is in Paris.
THE US CAN NEVER BECOME A DICTATORSHIP AND THERE IS NO WAY ANY PRESIDENT OR EVEN CONGRESS CAN CHANGE THE FUNDAMENTALS OF THE VOTING PROCESS OR HOW LONG A PRESIDENT CAN SERVE
Project 2025 doesn’t actually say this but some commentators have said this is the aim. Wikipedia puts it like this:
QUOTE Numerous commentators see Project 2025 as a path to the ending of American democracy, which would replace it with an undemocratic authoritarian regime, possibly led by Trump as dictator
This doesn’t mean it is. Those commenatators may well be mistaken.
But I need to prove that this is constitutionally impossible. because Wikipedia doesn’t say so and that’s what scares the people I help most.
So for instance the president can serve for at most two terms + up to 2 years if they start as a vice president mid the final term of a previous president.
QUOTE No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
(The 22nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution)
Or alternatively they would need to change article II. Every term is four years by article II, a constitutional amendment could change this to lifelong without any elections until the president decides to retire or dies:
(constitution.congress.gov/constitution/article-2/)
There is no way the US is going to approve such an amendment, either of them. So this is legally impossible.
They can't turn the government into a dictatorship or eliminate democracy. Yes it is a very long process, at the end of which 3/4 of US states have to ratify a change of constitution. That is not going to happen. Even many Republican states would be opposed and probably all of them if the aim of the new constitution is to establish Trump as a dictator and ends the process of democratic elections. They can't even change the maximum number of terms a president can stand for (two) or the length of the term (4 years) without amending the US constitution.
The project 2025 document doesn't actually say that they will do that. But it says many other impossible things.
QUOTE Philip Wallach, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute who studies the separation of powers and was not part of the Heritage project, said there’s a certain amount of “fantasizing” about the president’s capabilities.
QUOTE “Some of these visions, they do start to just bleed into some kind of authoritarian fantasies where the president won the election, so he’s in charge, so everyone has to do what he says — and that’s just not the system the government we live under,” he said.
. Conservative groups draw up plan to dismantle the US government and replace it with Trump’s vision
As an example of this legal fantasy, they say for instance that the first thing the president will do is to remove words like abortion, diversity and equity form the entire US legal code.
QUOTE The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.
So they claim the president will start by editing the US legal code and removing particular words throughout all the legal system of the USA.
The president can't change a word of the US code. Congress can but there is no way the far right can get a majority to alter the US code in that way. Then even if they did, not in this election, impossibly, but in some future election, hard to see how they could ever get a majority in both houses for such a plan. But hypothetically if they could the Supreme court would strike down nearly all those changes as unconstitutional. The word "equity" even occurs in the US constitution.
So that then also would need a constitutional change to change the way the Supreme Court works. If the US had a fascist constitution then the Supreme Court would have to interpret the US code in that way. But of course that can never happen.
There are many other fantastical and impossible things in the project 2025 document.
Most of the focus is on the Schedule F. Trump put this in place in the last few days of his presidency. It never was fully implemented and never got as far as legal challenges as Biden immediately reversed it.
What this would do is let the president fire 50,000 instead of 4,000 of the more than 2 million Federal employees. However that would be sure to get legal challenges. Biden has put in place a new rule which means a new president would need to take at least 2 months to even make a start on schedule F instead of doing it instantly as Trump did and more importantly makes it even more vulnerable to legal challenges.
It is a far lesser aim than the fantastical things they claim to do in much of project 2025 but it is probably also impossible, at least the Biden administration seem reasonably confident they have prevented it.
Wikipedia itself recognizes that articles that haven’t had much work on them often have major omissions, and recognizes this with its classification scheme. This is a C-class article.
QUOTE STARTS
C [class]
The article is substantial but is still missing important content or contains irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant problems or require substantial cleanup (Wikipedia:Cleanup - Wikipedia).
More detailed criteria
The article cites more than one reliable source and is better developed in style, structure, and quality than Start-Class, but it fails one or more of the criteria for B-Class. It may have some gaps or missing elements, or need editing for clarity, balance, or flow.
Useful to a casual reader, but would not provide a complete picture for even a moderately detailed study.
Considerable editing is needed to close gaps in content and solve cleanup (Wikipedia:Cleanup - Wikipedia) problems
I am unable to find a legal analysis of the article but that is not surprising as it isn’t legal text. I don’t think any legal expert is going to attempt a legal analysis of this bizarre hotch-potch of nonsense.
I’m of course no legal expert but I can point out the legally obvious like this.
US PRESIDENT CAN’T TERMINATE THE US CONSTITUTION OR CHANGE IT BY HIMSELF - NEEDS A MAJORITY OF 3/4 OF US STATES TO APPROVE IT
First, he can't terminate the US constitution. He can't remake it either. That requires 3/4 of states to approve it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
13 states are enough to stop it.
Here are 14 strongly Democrat states.
Vermont D+16
Massachusetts D+15
Hawaii D+14
Maryland D+14
California D+13
New York D+10
Rhode Island D+8
Washington D+8
Connecticut D+7
Delaware D+7
Illinois D+7
New Jersey D+6
Oregon D+6
Colorado D+4
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/most-democratic-states
There are many other states even Republican controlled ones that opposed a proposal to call a convention of states with an open agenda to amend the US constitution limited only to
“limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, impose fiscal restraints, and place term limits on federal officials.”
The 6 Republican controlled legislatures that failed it are: Kansas, Kentucky, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wyoming. out of 29 Republcan controlled legislatures.
Also the insurrection act only permits a president to use the military as like surrogate national guard and they remain subject to civilian rather than to military courts.
BLOG: The insurrection act only lets the president use soldiers as surrogate “policemen” like the national guard to uphold civilian law - and so long as the government is operating there is no justification for “martial law”
REPUBLICANS CAN’T OVERTURN THE RESPECT FOR MARRIAGE ACT WHICH REQUIRES ALL STATES TO RECOGNIZE GAY MARRIAGE EVEN IF ORBERGEFELLS IS OVERTURNED (UNLIKELY
Roe v. Wade was a special case, the Republican selection for many years was based on selecting justices with a history of decisions on abortion that would align with their aims. The justices are not republican in their decisions.
Roe was also special because it's been disputed ever since the Supreme Court decided it.
Even justice Thomas agreed with the other justices that Roe has no effect on this principle or other cases they may see unrelated to matters to do with questions about the legal status of a fetus.
The main reason the Supreme Court gave for overturning Roe is that they felt it was for legislators rather than justices to figure out if a fetus has a legal status and if so to what extent and what it is. That obviously doesn't apply to Obergefell which is nothing to do with the status of a fetus.
BLOG: Supreme court decision to overturn Roe v. Wade does NOT mean the US supreme court will overturn gay marriage, right for contraception, or interracial marriage - and leaves decisions about abortion to the American voters
The idea that the Supreme Court would suddenly make illegal things legal is again fantasy. It has often decided against Republicans.
The respect for marriage act had bipartisan support from
- Republicans and Democrats
- 3/4 or more of the US public.
- It passed the House 258 - 169, 1 Present with 39 Republicans joining the Democrats.
- It passed the senate 61 to 36
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/8404/actionshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respect_for_Marriage_Act
This means a new president can't run on a platform of repealing the respect for marriage act in their manifesto. It is there to stay.
Even if the Supreme Court overturned Oberfells which requires all the states to issue gay marriage certificates.
TRUMP ISN’T DOING THAT WELL IN THE POLLS, ONLY HOVERING AROUND 50:50 AT A TIME OF REPUBLICAN PRIMARIES WITH THE NEWS FILLED WITH ALL THINGS TRUMP AND REPUBLICAN
As for Trump doing well in the polls, the main thing that the articles I find don't mention is that there is no campaigning by Democrats.
So the polls can hardly be representative at present. All the voters have seen recently are the Republican candidate speeches for the primaries and Republicans trying to make their case with each other.
Then we'll have the Republican primaries and meanwhile nothing from Democrats as they decided long ago to select Biden.
For that matter a lot of the polling at present may be a protest vote againt Biden rather than seriously considering whether they want Trump as their president.
GOVERNOR NEWSOM ON HOW THE DEMOCRATS HAVEN’T EVEN STARTED THEIR CAMPAIGN
Governor Newcome made this point. Naturally all the focus is on the Republican primaries and all things Trump. Because Biden's campaign hasn't started. Still Trump is only neck and neck with Biden. Even though Biden is doing no campaigning yet.
I haven’t seen any articles yet that make this rather obvious point, as a reason why we should pay no attention to the polls right now.
He also says that national polls don’t tell us much for another reason that the race is often decided by a few million people in a few key battleground states.
Extract from: Gavin Newsom's full interview with CNN
Question: Why is Joe Biden running neck and neck in almost every poll with a man who was impeached twice and facing 91 felony counts.
Gavin Newsom: Because we are an incredibly divided country and always have been certainly in recent years in notable terms.
The last election arguably was 44,000 votes in Arizona, Georgia and Wisconsiin. That was one half of one percent of 10 million cast in those three states.
National polls, I know our obsession with them, then we all shift to we shouldn't ahve really been focusing on the national polls it is about these key states. Come on this is so early, our obsession with polls, who is up and now.
Right now 24/7 surround sound all things Trump.
Question: That's not going to change?
Gavin Newsom: I don't know there's other things going on in this country than Donald Trump.
Question: We are covering other stuff. I'm just saying if he's going head for head ...
Gavin Newsom: We haven't even started. These guys are in the middle of a primary. You are rightly focusing on Trump, Trumpism, and those who are bellyflapping like Ron De Santis and whose up and whose down, is Nicky Haley up to.
We are going to shift that focus, I assume, in the interests of the American people and fairness, to Biden's re-election as he gears back up and he is just starting to get into gear.
There are many reasons why Trump can't be elected.
This is very different from 2016 and 2020. In those years he had the whole of the Republican party behind him and had nobody in his party campaigning against him.
He only needs 3% of his party to swing to Biden, and he has lost ALL the battleground states. Indeed he only needs 3% to swing in the battleground states. Or 6% to abstain.
This is not because of his policies. It is because of Jan 06.
I can go into this in more detail in a separate blog post. "Why Trump can't win".
As the title suggests I don't see how it is possible at all. The people who say he can win aren't mentioning the many issues that he would face once campaigning ramps up in earnest. E.g. they don’t even mention that Liz Cheney and a minority of Republicans would be actively campaigning against him. Doing anything to prevent him to get re-elected. Not campaigning against Biden, althogh Republicans, their aim would be simply to prevent Trump becoming president ever again.
Not because of Trump’s policies. Because of what he did in Jan 06 where he never told his supporters to leave the Capitol and never told them that it is wrong to hang his vice president. He just needed to say those two things, it wouldn’t matter if they listened or not, and he would still have the party behind him. But he never said that and since then he has never said it was wrong of them to try to hang his vice president. That dispresepct for the constittution which is so important to American politicians is why a substantial Republican minority will do anything to stop him becoming president again. Trump doesn’t seem to even understand why it is an issue with anyone.
That is very different from third party candidates splitting the vote which has almost no effect in US politics. .
There are many other issues that would come up over and over during the campaign trail if Trump is the Republican candidate.
“SCHEDULE F” WOULD ALLOW A PRESIDENT TO CHANGE 50,000 OUT OF 2 MILLION FEDERAL EMPLOYEES INSTEAD OF 4,000 - BUT IT IS LIKELY ILLEGAL - AND BIDEN HAS MADE IT A LONGER PROCESS AND LEGALLY HARDER FOR A REPUBLICAN TO IMPLEMENT IT
Anyway back to project 2025. The main thing concrete they have is "Schedule F" which Biden immediately revoked so it's never been through legal challenges - would let a president fire 50,000 instead of 4,000 of the 2 million Federal employees. But it might well be illegal and even if the did do that, he can't order the employees to do illegal things, or if he does then they would end up being prosecuted if they did what he said if it is against the law.
I've tried to find a detailed analysis from experts not found much so far but found a few useful things, including that Biden is introducing a new rule that gives more protection for Federal employees which would first delay the implementation for Schedule F as they would have to reverse his rule first which takes some months - and it would also make it more open to legal challenges. See my comment here:
Phillip Wallach saying it is about "authoritarian fantasies". Most of the focus is on Shedule F which would allow Trump to replace 50,000 instead of 4,000 of the more than 2 million Federal employees. However that would be sure to get legal challenges.
Biden is in the process of putting in place a new rule to give more protection to prevent employees from having their protections removed. The Republicans say it would be just a speed bump, delay by a few months since they could go through the same process to reverse what Biden did. However what that misses are the legal challenges. The Biden rule will make the legal challenges more strongly grounded because Schedule F and reversing his rule would remove protection.
Then - a lot of this would be prevented in Congress because it is legislative and he can't pass much of the legislation without a filibuster proof majority in the Senate.
It would be very had for the Republicans to get a majority of 60 in the Senate.
Only 1/3 of the Senate is up for re-election every 2 years and the Democrats have a majority of 2 there after the 2022 election.
Here is one estimate for 2024. The Republicans might pick up 3 seats which would turn it to a one seat majority for Republicans. There is still a possibliity the Democrats hold the senate and given exceptionally good results for the Republicans, they could win 54 or 55 seats.
Given all this, I’d imagine the modal outcome from 2024 is something like Republicans picking up about three Senate seats. There’s uncertainty around that; it’s surely within the realm of possibility that Democrats hold the Senate, but it’s also possible that Republicans could wind up with 54 or 55 seats. And of course, all of these races are correlated. If the GOP is doing well enough to win the presidency in 2024, they should have no trouble also winning the Senate.1
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-senate-chances-2024-and-beyond/
It all also depends on a Republican gaining the presidency.
Forgetting about Trump it’s going to be hard for them to get any candidate elected.
The polls are misleading. Because as I said above, we have only campaigning in favour of Republicans at present and debates between Republican candidates for the primaries, no debates between Democrat candidates. Also we don't have Liz Cheney and others campaigning against Trump or the presidential debates.
So now suppose the Republicans run on a manifesto of implementing Project 2025.
This might enthuse the core base, it would turn away all the people who are opposed to Jan 06 and to any idea of Trump or any other Republican or any president with this level of power.
Plus of course if the president does get this level of power with schedule F then the next president if democrat can then fire all those 50,000 employees the Republican president elected.
Then remember that it doesn't matter how far righ the employees are, if the president asks them to do illegal things and they try to do them then they will be prosecuted and may indeed end up in prison for it. So called "conservative justices" mainly originalists, often rule against Republicans.
QUOTE STARTS
Typically, a new president is allowed to replace around 4,000 “political appointees” — a revolving layer that sits atop the federal work force. Below the political layer lies a long-term work force of more than two million, who have strong employment protections meant to make it harder for a new president of a different political party to fire them. These protections, enshrined in law, established a civil service that is supposed to be apolitical — with federal officials accumulating subject matter and institutional expertise over long careers in the service of both Republican and Democratic presidents.
...
Mr. Trump’s staff estimated that Schedule F would give the president the power to terminate and replace as many as 50,000 career government officials who served in roles that influenced federal policy.
...
Now, the two plans — Mr. Trump’s and Heritage’s — are dovetailing, even as Mr. Trump himself has shown no interest in the details. Conveniently, Dennis Kirk, a former Trump administration lawyer who was involved with the adoption of Schedule F, is now employed by Heritage. Mr. Kirk is busy at work on Project 2025, Dr. Roberts said.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/20/us/politics/republican-president-2024-heritage-foundation.html
This is about how Biden has added extra protections to workers in the Federal Agencies with a new rule which is in the process of being adopted.
The next president could remove thse protections but that would delay the process a couple of months before they could try to implement Schedule F. But as well as that, it increases the legal protections of those workers and makes the legal challenges easier because the new president would be removing those new legal protections.
QUOTE STARTS
The proposed new rule was unveiled by the White House’s Office of Personnel Management in a lengthy filing for the Federal Register on Friday. It would allow workers to keep their existing job protections, such as a right to appeal any firing or reassignment, even if their positions were reclassified. It would also tighten the definition of what types of positions can be exempted from civil service job protections, limiting it to non-career political appointees who are expected to turn over when a presidency ends.
The regulatory proposal argued that maintaining protections for career civil servants enhances the functioning of American democracy because such federal workers have institutional memory, subject matter expertise and technical knowledge “that incoming political appointees may lack.” They should be free to disagree with their leaders — short of defying lawful orders — without fear of reprisal, the proposed rule states.
The public will now have 60 days to comment on the proposed rule, but the Biden administration expects to complete it by early 2024.
...
“Our proposed regulation is strong and based in law and has a strong rationale,” Mr. Shriver said. “Anyone who wants to explore a change in policy would have work to do,” he added. “They’d have to go through the same administrative rule-making process and make sure that their policy is grounded in the law.”
...
Max Stier, president of the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that seeks to make government more effective, has been working with the Biden administration on this and other proposals to bolster the civil service. He said he understands the vulnerability of the new proposed rule to being overturned, but he said it would make reimposing Schedule F even more vulnerable to legal challenges than it was when Mr. Trump first issued the order.
Other Democrats, who fear the return of Mr. Trump and Schedule F, view the Biden effort less enthusiastically.
“While the Biden administration’s forthcoming regulation is a good first step to protect the federal civil service from politicization, I’ve consistently said this demands a legislative fix,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, who along with Senator Tim Kaine — both Democrats of Virginia — has led congressional efforts to prevent a return of Schedule F.
“The Biden administration must make this a top legislative priority,” Mr. Connolly added. “That is the only thing that is going to stop Trump’s crusade to remake the civil service in his image.”
It might or might not work to stop Schedule F. Other Democrats say that it needs a legislative fix, need to pass a law in Congress to say a president can’t do that. But that’s not possible at present with the Republican control of the House and meanwhile Biden’s approach does give some protection.
Other Democrats, who fear the return of Mr. Trump and Schedule F, view the Biden effort less enthusiastically.
“While the Biden administration’s forthcoming regulation is a good first step to protect the federal civil service from politicization, I’ve consistently said this demands a legislative fix,” said Representative Gerald E. Connolly, who along with Senator Tim Kaine — both Democrats of Virginia — has led congressional efforts to prevent a return of Schedule F.
“The Biden administration must make this a top legislative priority,” Mr. Connolly added. “That is the only thing that is going to stop Trump’s crusade to remake the civil service in his image.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/15/us/politics/trump-biden-schedule-f.html
Examples of more bizarre material in Project 2025.
EXAMPLE THE AIM TO REMOVE THE WORDS EQUITY, DIVERSITY, ABORTION AND MANY PHRASES FROM THE ENTIRE US CODE- LEGAL NONSENSE - THEY WOULD HAVE TO AMEND EVEN THE US CONSTITUTION TO REMOVE THE TERM “EQUITY
For example this is part of their agenda:
QUOTE The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors. This starts with deleting the terms sexual orientation and gender identity (“SOGI”), diversity, equity, and inclusion (“DEI”), gender, gender equality, gender equity, gender awareness, gender-sensitive, abortion, reproductive health, reproductive rights, and any other term used to deprive Americans of their First Amendment rights out of every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.
The last part to remove words to do with reproductive health, abortion, reproductive rights, sexual orientation, gender identity etc from every piece of legislation that exists requires a majority in the house, a fillibuster proof majority in the Senate, a Republican president - and even then there is no way it is going to work.
The Supreme Court would strike down many of the changes as unconstitutional. Indeed if you take it literally I’m sure many laws would just become unintelligible.
There are 60 results in the US Code for “abortion”
425 for diversity
and 1450 for equity.
This is not written with legal precision.
Indeed what about the US constitution?.
They would have to amend the US constitution. It has two occurrences of Equity in:
Article III
QUOTE Article III, Section 2, Clause 1: The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority …
(article-3/section-2/clause-1/)
Eleventh amendment:
QUOTE: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
If you take it literally it is legally absurd.
The other things they say there obviously would have numerous legal challenges too. I just picked on the most obviously absurd thing to make a point.
There is no way anyone is going to do a detailed legal analysis of this absurdity.
SAYS THAT TRANSGENDER IS PORNOGRAPHY AND ANY PUBLISHER NEEDS TO BE IMPRISONED AND LIBRARIANS CLASSIFIED AS SEX OFFENDERS - SUPREME COURT WOULD STRIKE THIS DOWN AS NONSENSE AND THEY’D EVEN HAVE TO IMPRISON THE EDITORS OF SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN AND MOST MAGAZINE STORE OWNERS
The mandate also defines transgender as pornography and says publishers and distributors of books that cover the topic of LGBT (presumably including editors of many scientific journals as it is the topic of many science papers) should go to prison.
It says librarians who work in libraries that contain transgender literature should be registered as sex offenders:
It says that companies that facilitate its distribution over the internet should be closed down (presumably all social media companies unless they prohibit discussion of trans).
QUOTE Pornography, manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children …
QUOTE The people who produce and distribute it should be imprisoned. Educators and public librarians who purvey it should be classed as registered sex offenders. And telecommunications and technology firms that facilitate its spread should be shuttered.
There is NO WAY books and articles on the general topic of transsexuality could ever legally be classified as pornography in the USA.
QUOTE pictures and/or writings of sexual activity intended solely to excite lascivious feelings of a particularly blatant and aberrational kind, such as acts involving children, animals, orgies, and all types of sexual intercourse. The printing, publication, sale and distribution of "hard core" pornography is either a felony or misdemeanor in most states. Since determining what is pornography and what is "soft core" and "hard core" are subjective questions to judges, juries and law enforcement officials, it is difficult to define, since the law cases cannot print examples for the courts to follow.
Legal Dictionary - Law.com (Legal Dictionary - Law.com)
To take a very clear example again, there is no way that the Scientific American article: (Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia) counts as pornography! There is nothing there of any sexual nature it just describes the science and biology that leads to trans people.
As I talk about here:
They would have to try to imprison the editorial board of Scientific American and the author of that article for publishing it and all the bookshops that sell Scientific American for selling it and to classify all librarians for libraries that have copies of Scientific American including searchable online or databases as sexual offenders.
The Supreme Court if it ever got that far would be sure to strike it down if they tried to define the article: (Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia) as pornography. They wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on.
The Supreme Court if it ever got that far would be sure to strike it down if they tried to define the article: (Stop Using Phony Science to Justify Transphobia) as pornography. They wouldn’t have a legal leg to stand on.
JUST MASSES OF RUBBISH, POLITE TO CALL IT LEGAL FANTASY
The rest also is just legal fantasy. Again they have to change not only the legislation but also the constitution.
There is just masses of RUBBISH like that in the mandate that clearly would never go anywhere.
It is being polite to call it “fantasy”.
You don’t have to read far to see that. All this which I discussed here is on page 5 of the (2025_MandateForLeadership)
Nobody is going to do a detailed legal analysis of this nonsens