by Joseph DeMaio, ©2023

(Sep. 9, 2023) — For anyone paying even passing attention, the name “Jonathan Turley” will be recognized as one of the few law professors remaining in academia willing publicly to defend the First Amendment, the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression it guarantees…, or at least at one time did.
Professor Turley – as the youngest occupant of the Shapiro Chair for Public Interest Law at George Washington University Law School and who teaches, among other subjects, constitutional law – has recently come under attack by another law “professor,” one Laurence Tribe. Tribe was once a purported “professor” of constitutional law at that intellectual port-a-potty in Cambridge, Massachusetts: Hah-Vahd University…, more on that entity later.
Amusingly, the first sentence of his entry on the Wikipedia website states, as of the evening hours of Sept. 8, 2023: “Laurence Henry Tribe (born October 10, 1941) is an American legal hack who is a University Professor Emeritus at Harvard University. He previously served as the Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School.” (Emphasis added) The entry indicates in footnote that it was last edited on Sept. 8, when the term “hack” was likely substituted for the entry’s prior term, “scholar.”
“Legal hack?” Plainly, Tribe does not review or do his own editing of that website entry. And yes, Virginia, because Tribe was born in Shanghai, China, there is no danger of him becoming president, as he is not a “natural born Citizen” under a de Vattel or Minor v. Happersett interpretation of the Constitution. Still, the term “hack” is not altogether inaccurate…, let us see how long it takes him to make another edit. Sept. 9 update: it took him (or an assistant or perhaps an AI algorithm) less than 24 hours to identify the “hack” edit and restore the original “scholar” language…, confirming that sometimes, “open-source” websites can produce humorous First Amendment satire, even if short-lived.
But I digress.

Tribe’s recent attacks on Turley have consisted primarily of ad hominem assaults on his defense of the First Amendment and freedom of expression everywhere, including college campuses. As Turley notes here, Tribe’s adolescent, toxic hostility to the First Amendment and those who would defend it is legend. Unsurprisingly, Tribe is also a dedicated Democrat hypocrite, as he has in the past (when being paid money as a private attorney) represented newspapers asserting the First Amendment rights of the press.
Earlier this week, Tribe himself called Turley a “hack” who “doesn’t know what he’s talking about” regarding Turley’s critique of the Democrats’ newest attempt to keep Donald Trump off state ballots in 2024: the “disqualification clause” of the 14th Amendment. That left-field warning track gambit is addressed at The P&E here.
Aside from Tribe’s attack on Turley for his (well-reasoned) opinion that the 14th Amendment “disqualification clause” argument is bogus, the Hah-Vahd emeritus rejects altogether Turley’s defense of the First Amendment, particularly as applicable on college campuses. As far as Tribe is concerned, freedom of speech, conservative thinkers or speakers and freedom of expression are all to be checked at the door when entering the campus. It is a safe bet that Tribe has never encountered a free speech or free expression issue advocate on the Hah-Vahd campus who he did not want to censor or eject.
As for Hah-Vahd itself, that institution of higher indoctrination hijacks as its motto the term “veritas,” translating from Latin into English as “truth” or “truthfulness.”
Seriously?
According to a recent study by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (“FIRE”) summarized by Professor Turley here, Hah-Vahd ranks dead last – as in “not even close” – in the rankings of “educational” fortresses for the preservation of freedom of speech and expression on campuses.
The FIRE Report, based on responses by over 55,000 enrolled students at 248 colleges and universities nationwide, is an eye-opener. When convenient – after consuming your humble servant’s insightful defense of Turley here – enlightened P&E readers should review the FIRE Report’s findings, as they give a sobering glimpse into how dramatically the “fundamental changing of America” on college campuses is progressing…, yes, Virginia…, as promised in 2008 by the nation’s Second Usurper in Chief (“SUC”), Monsieur Obama.
For example, Hah-Vahd’s ranking on the scale of protecting and preserving freedom of speech and expression on its campus was a perfect 0.00 on the FIRE free speech index. In fact, when negative-number responses were taken into consideration, its actual “real” score drops to -10.69. The FIRE Report states: “[Hah-Vahd’s] actual score is -10.69, more than six standard deviations below the average and more than two standard deviations below the second-to-last school in the rankings and its Ivy League counterpart, the University of Pennsylvania.” Yikes.

Stated otherwise, the ivy-decorated port-a-potty of Cambridge and one of its better known law school alums possess neither the tolerance nor the collective intellect to objectively address and debate head-on any ideas or concepts except their own far-left ones. In that respect, they are not unlike a colony of ravenous termites, chewing away at one of the pillars of a Republic founded on principle rather than expediency. Where are the pest exterminators when they are really needed?
But as long as there are those willing to borrow or shell out $111,000.00 per year to be educa…, oops, my bad…, indoctrinated, the faux charisma of the institution will continue.
And hey, if Brandon actually makes it to the general election in 2024 and miraculously – against all the polling numbers and with the assistance of midnight “newly-discovered” ballot drops – gets elected, maybe he will take another swipe at forgiving the student debt…, perhaps even order refunds for those foolish enough to have actually paid out of their (daddy’s and mommy’s) pockets to attend the place where “ve/ri/tas” prevails. Hey, the taxpayers owe it to them.
Only in America.


As a person engaged in the defense of the original intent meaning, purpose, and understanding by the founders and framers of the “natural born Citizen” national security purpose term in our U.S. Constitution for a long time (15+ years), i.e. going back in the first half of 2008, Professor Jonathan Turley has played both sides of the street as I remember him in his legal opinion blog writings in regards to the “natural born Citizen” term in 2008. He was one of the first ones (on behalf of Hillary Clinton imo) to go after John McCain on the NBC issue, posing questions about McCain’s constitutional eligibility. But then later he was a strong defender of Barack Hussein Obama’s constitutional eligibility when it became obvious that Obama was the nominee. He supported the U.S. Senate hearing about McCain’s constitutional eligibility but never bothered to strongly urge one be held for Obama too. I believe he did what he did when he did them for politically biased reasons and on behalf of people who asked him to do so, i.e., Hillary and the Democratic Party at that time back in 2008. So despite his strong defense of the 1st Amendment part of our Constitution, he has waffled (for political choice reasons imo) on the presidential eligibility term “natural born Citizen” in our U.S. Constitution. So I see him as a scholar who can be influenced by political agendas and favorites but maybe not as openly obviously politically hardcore motivated and controlled as Olson and Tribe. Turley comes across with a more velvet touch but he is still clearly a Progressive who is willing to bend the Constitution’s original intent meaning if is suits his or a political favorite’s agenda and needs. But he’ll do it in a softer more clever way. See this blast from the past. Meet Poppa Birther: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/meet-poppa-birther/ … and who he associated with in 2008 … https://www.scribd.com/document/70316987/Meet-Poppa-Birther-Professor-Jonathan-Turley-FOMB
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
Author: Natural Born Citizen
http://www.kerchner.com/books/catalog.htm
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
Response from Joseph DeMaio:
———————-
Your humble servant much appreciates CDR Kerchner’s information that Jonathan Turley may have been part of the “problem” rather than part of the “solution” in years past when the Obama eligibility issue was bubbling. Moreover, had your servant been aware of those circumstances, his offerings regarding the eligibility claim of the Second Usurper in Chief (“SUC”) might well have included a different slant on Turley. Back then, his focus was on the deceptions of the Congressional Research Service rather than articles by Professor Turley.
Confirming that Professor Turley was likely not part of the “solution” back then, your servant dredged this post up (the “Internet is forever”) from December 2008: Eligibility Questions: Can Clinton Serve Obama and Can Obama Serve the Country? Interesting.
Having endured the flames of eligibility trench warfare himself, CDR. Kerchner remains one of the few “go to” sources — now that his attorney, Mario Apuzzo is gone — for historical information on the continuing saga which, of course, the Supreme Court persists in “evading.” While your servant still supports Turley on his First Amendment stance, he will be doing additional research on the professor’s eligibility stance, thanks to the Commander’s comment. Stay tuned.
Your point cannot be brought up often enough.