Editor’s note: This essay was first published on the author’s blog: Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.

‘This body and this nation has [sic] a territories and a colonies problem.’ Those words from Del. Stacey Plaskett echoed in the House chamber this week as the delegate interrupted the election of the House speaker to demand voting rights for herself and the representatives of other non-states. The problem, however, is not with the House, but with Plaskett and other members in demanding the violation of Article I of the Constitution.

After her election in 2015, Plaskett has often shown a certain disregard for constitutional principles and protections. Despite being a lawyer, Plaskett has insisted in Congress that hate speech is not constitutionally protected, a demonstrably false assertion. Where there is overwhelming evidence of a censorship system that a court called ‘Orwellian,’ Plaskett has repeatedly denied the evidence presented before her committee.  When a journalist testified on the evidence of that censorship system, Plaskett suggested his possible arrest. (Plaskett suggested that respected journalist journalist Matt Taibbi had committed perjury due to an error that he made, not in testimony but in a tweet that he later corrected).

However, ignoring the free speech or free press values pales in comparison to what Plaskett was suggesting this week in nullifying critical language in Article I.

Article I, Section 2, states:

‘The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch in the States Legislature.’

The ability to vote in the House is expressly limited to the elected representatives of ‘the several states.’

Nevertheless, as the vote was being taken on the eventual election of Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.), Plaskett rose to demand recognition and to know why she was not allowed to vote:

‘I note that the names of representatives from American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and the District of Columbia were not called, representing, collectively, 4 million Americans. Mr. Speaker, collectively, the largest per capita of veterans in this country.’

The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, only states may vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

The presiding member asked a rather poignant question in response: ‘Does the gentlelady have a problem?’

The answer was decidedly ‘yes.’

Plaskett responded, ‘I asked why they were not called. I asked why they were not called from the parliamentarian, please.’

The response was obvious:

‘Delegates-elect and the resident commissioner-elect are not qualified to vote/ Representatives-elect are the only individuals qualified to vote in the election of the speaker. As provided in Section 36 of the House rules and manual, the speaker is elected by a majority of the members-elect voting by surname.’

Plaskett then declared, ‘This body and this nation has a territory and a colonies problem. What was supposed to be temporary has now, effectively, become permanent. We must do something about this.’

As Plaskett’s mic was cut off, she objected, ‘But I have a voice!’ as Democrats gave her a standing ovation. The media joined in the adoration, including The Atlantic magazine, which referred to her as ‘Congresswoman Plaskett’ rather than a delegate.

There is no question that the Virgin Islands have a high percentage of veterans for its population (which stands at only 104,000). It is also a cherished part of our country. But it is not a state.

Plaskett was demanding a floor vote for herself and delegates from American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and Washington, D.C.

These delegates are currently allowed to vote only in committees. The House is permitted to grant such authority since these delegates are not actually voting on the final language or adoption of legislation.

What Democrats were supporting was to allow votes on the House floor, which would have collapsed the bright-line rule that has governed the body for decades. It would also have effectively removed the language referencing ‘states’ from Article I, Section 2, without a constitutional amendment.

This is why Plaskett’s ‘problem’ goes further than simply the selection of the Speaker.

The Democrats have long argued that delegates should be allowed to vote as full members, starting with the D.C. delegate. I have written previously on that issue in academic publications. See, e.g., Jonathan Turley, Too Clever By Half: The Partial Representation of the District of Columbia in the House of Representatives, 76 George Washington University Law Review 305-374 (2008). I also testified at the prior congressional hearings (here and here and here) and written columns (here and here) on why I considered the bill to be flagrantly unconstitutional.

It is neither pleasant nor popular to raise such constitutional objections. I received heat after one Senate hearing in which Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton told the senators that, if they were going to vote against this bill, ‘do not blame the Framers, blame Jonathan Turley.’ However, the problem has always been the curious constitutional status of these districts and territories.

The language of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous. Absent an amendment to the Constitution, only states may vote on the floor of the United States House of Representatives.

The problem is not, as claimed by Del. Plaskett, with ‘colonies.’ The Virgin Islands is not a ‘colony.’ It can, at any time, move to become an independent nation. Otherwise, the American people would have to vote for this tiny island to be a state. Either way, citizens will choose the status of the island.

The Democrats giving Plaskett a standing ovation would have presumably added half a dozen new votes for non-states. The call would likely then be for the addition of some representation in the Senate. That would certainly give the Democrats control of the House, but it would allow a fluid definition of what constitutes a representative — a definition that could be manipulated in the future by the majority to maintain their control of the House.

The vote for speaker illustrates the problem. Short a couple of votes, the Democrats were demanding the recognition of new forms of representatives to elect Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries of New York. Presumably, a future House could then remove the votes to achieve the same advantage. It could also recognize other territories to increase voting margins. (Notably, some liberal professors have also suggested dividing blue states to simply multiply Democratic votes in the Senate. That would be constitutional if it was allowed by Congress).

The call to create new forms of voting members on the House floor is consistent with the ad hoc measures in other areas. For example, despite opposition from the public, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and others have pushed to simply pack the Court with a majority of liberal justices to support their agenda.

The public’s opposition to court packing has not deterred the Democrats. In the same way, unable to secure a majority of citizens to support D.C. statehood, the Democrats previously sought to create a voting member without a constitutional amendment or change in status.

This week, they would have accomplished that result not just for Washington, but other non-states, including the Northern Mariana Islands, a commonwealth covering only 180 miles with a population of less than 50,000.

We have the oldest and most stable constitutional system in the world precisely because we have resisted improvisational or ad hoc measures to achieve political ends. The Constitution is a common article of faith that transcends our passing or petty divisions. These demands for constructive constitutional amendments are the voices of the faithless.

To paraphrase Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, ‘the fault dear [delegate] lies not in our [states] but in ourselves.’

Nearly every tribute to Jimmy Carter is necessarily encumbered with caveats about Carter, the president. While it is true that the ‘Reagan revolution’ provided America with needed jolts of patriotic and economic strength, Carter, our 39th president, consistently exhibited traits that public figures of our own times would do well to model.  

Much about the infamous ‘Carter years’ is rightly remembered with disdain. Those alive during the late 1970s will remember mortgage rates in the teens, the Iranian hostage crisis and long lines at the gas pumps. As has been well documented, many of Carter’s policies and his handling of many issues during his presidency failed to improve the country’s economy or the zeitgeist of its people. Name the issue (energy, the economy, welfare, international relations, terrorism, bipartisanship, et. al) and President Carter struggled with it.

But many — including myself — deeply admired him as a human being, respected him as our president and fondly remember his earnest smile and friendly wave. I believe he was a genuinely good human being and because of his generally virtuous nature, Carter was a politician who didn’t like to play politics. Washington insiders didn’t like working with him and international leaders didn’t seem to respect him.

Today, our nation suffers under another ‘naive in chief’ (though President 39 was, I believe, a man of vastly superior character to 46). The late-night comics have gotten some easy laughs riffing on how Jimmy Carter must have been thrilled with the Biden presidency. But unlike Biden, President Carter was, I believe, a benign presence. 

He could have been the man next door from just about any neighborhood in heartland America — the one who showed the neighborhood kids how to fix their bikes. His persona was pretty much identical to that of my dad’s friends from that era, an approachable grown-up you knew you could trust and who would help if he could. Like Teddy Roosevelt, who invested time serving Christian endeavors post-White House, Mr. Carter went from meeting with world leaders to … teaching Sunday School.

When Carter took office in January 1977, America was in the aftermath of Watergate, the Vietnam War’s end and the sexual and social upheavals of the 1960s were engendering a ‘new normal.’ The 1970s were a time when guilt over sin would be scorned in prime-time (thanks, Norman Lear) and the legal cords tethering America to the moral foundations of Western civilization would begin to be severed (thanks, ACLU). 

Regarding the years of change shaping the nation Carter was to inherit, a 1964 Time article made these observations about the emerging mindset of many Americans:

‘Pleasure is considered an almost Constitutional right rather than a privilege, in which self-denial is increasingly seen as foolishness rather than virtue. While science has reduced the fear of long-dreaded earthly dangers, skepticism has diminished the fear of divine punishment. In short, the Puritan ethic, so long the dominant moral force in the U.S., is widely considered to be dying, if not dead, and there are few mourners.’

Into this milieu, candidate Jimmy Carter announced that he was a ‘born-again Christian’ (a concept that many American moderns were learning of, no doubt, for the first time). Affable and honest, Carter injected something into public discourse that would change American politics forever: an evangelical Christian testimony. 

Using words from the Gospel of John, chapter three, candidate Carter talked about being ‘born again,’ and suddenly the term was part of the American vernacular. General Motors advertised a ‘Born Again Oldsmobile.’ Updated editions of books and TV shows were marketed as being ‘born again.’ Pundits mocked and commentators opined, but the conversation was irretrievably now in the process: politics and religion were mixed and Jimmy Carter had been the catalyst.

Numerous other conservative Christian leaders would weigh in on the battle to preserve America’s Judeo-Christian foundation. And while Jimmy Carter’s party is now associated with everything but ‘the religious right,’ let the record show that Carter affirmed what no Democrat today would dare say: God, Jesus Christ and the Bible were the cornerstones of his life, and they shaped his convictions and behaviors. 

Jimmy Carter exhibited ‘the fruit of the Spirit’ (c.f. Galatians 5:22-23). Carter seemed to exemplify Christ’s words in the Gospel of Mark, chapter 10:44: ‘Whoever will be the greatest among you will be the servant of all.’ Carter carried himself as a gentleman. While campaigning for the election of 1980, both Carter and Reagan embodied characteristics pretty much unknown to American politics today: they were respectful and dignified and even their sparring in debates was instructive and watchable.

The 1970s were a time in which many negatives were set in motion that would yield tragic consequences for decades to come (the rise of modern Islamic fundamentalism, Marxism’s rebirth in Europe, post-modernism in classrooms on both sides of the Atlantic and the accelerated breakdown of the family throughout the West). 

But there is no denying that from that same era came one who exemplified some of the best things about America and American leaders: a Georgia peanut grower, tilling the soil of a family farm, could become governor of his state, then leader of his nation. True to his wife, Carter raised four children and would later raise roofs over the heads of underprivileged people. For many years, Carter’s standard look in public was to wear a carpenter’s nail apron as he swung a hammer to help others.

Jimmy Carter served his country, his church and his Savior and quietly left an example. Mr. President, I was just a kid back then, but I was watching and taking notes. Godspeed, sir, and thank you for serving our country as you did.  

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is reportedly expected to resign from his position as early as Monday, according to Canadian media.

The news was first reported by the Globe and Mail on Sunday night, citing three sources. The outlet said that it is unclear when exactly the Liberal Party leader will step down, but a resignation is expected to come before a national caucus meeting on Wednesday.

The news comes as Trudeau’s popularity continues to dwindle in Canada, which has a national election planned for Oct. 20 of this year. The country continues to suffer from a housing crisis, a declining per-capita GDP and high inflation, among other issues.

According to Canadian pollster Angus Reid, Trudeau has a disapproval rate of around 68% as of Dec. 24, with a meager 28% of Canadians supporting him.

The potential resignation would also come after Trudeau, who became prime minister in 2015, braved a difficult few months in politics. In September, he faced a no confidence vote in parliament that later failed, despite efforts from the Conservative Party to remove him from office.

On Dec. 16, Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that she was stepping down from Trudeau’s cabinet, dealing a significant blow to the prime minister. In her resignation letter, she claimed that the only ‘honest and viable path’ was to leave the Cabinet.

‘For the past number of weeks, you and I have found ourselves at odds about the best path forward for Canada,’ Freeland, who was previously seen as a Trudeau loyalist, wrote.

‘Our country is facing a grave challenge,’ the letter added. ‘That means keeping our fiscal powder dry today, so we have the reserves we may need for a coming tariff war.’

Later in December, one of Trudeau’s key allies, New Democratic Party leader Jagmeet Singh, said that he planned to present a formal motion of no-confidence on Jan. 27.

‘No matter who is leading the Liberal Party, this government’s time is up. We will put forward a clear motion of non-confidence in the next sitting of the House of Commons,’ Singh said.

Trudeau’s personal choices have also invited backlash from his opponents. At the end of November, Trudeau faced international criticism after he was seen dancing at a Taylor Swift concert in Toronto while a destructive riot took place in his home city of Montreal.

Don Stewart, a Member of Parliament (MP) representing part of Toronto, called out the prime minister in a post on X.

‘Lawless protesters run roughshod over Montreal in violent protest. The Prime Minister dances,’ the Canadian politician wrote. ‘This is the Canada built by the Liberal government.’

‘Bring back law and order, safe streets and communities in the Canada we once knew and loved,’ Stewart added. Trudeau later denounced the lawlessness, calling the riot ‘appalling.’

Fox News Digital has reached out to Trudeau’s office for comment.

Fox News’ Chris Massaro, The Associated Press and Reuters contributed to this report.

If President Biden’s goal is to anger as many Americans as possible as he shuffles his way out the door, he’s absolutely exceeding these dubious expectations. 

Exhibit A is Biden’s (or whoever is running the White House in these waning days) decision to award the Presidential Medal of Freedom to election denier Hillary Clinton and George Soros, who has done more damage to the United States as a private citizen for many years than arguably anyone in the country. 

The Oprah-ization of handing out medals (and YOU get a medal! And YOU get a medal!) to Clinton and Soros comes not long after Biden gave a blanket pardon to his son, Hunter, after repeatedly promising not to do so. And after he awarded the Presidential Citizens Medal to Liz Cheney and Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., for their work on the Jan. 6 Committee that barred cross-examination of any handpicked ‘witnesses.’ And for this part, in 2004, Thompson voted against the certification of the 2004 presidential election won by George W. Bush.

The Soros award is particularly galling given what his billions in activism have done especially to the American justice system. Soros-funded Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg is a primary example. Soros donated $1 million to the Color of Change PAC in 2021, which subsequently donated $1 million to Bragg’s campaign shortly thereafter. Bragg, for his part, turned cities like New York into dystopian hellscapes, especially in the subway system, where murders and stabbing are currently occurring at an alarming rate.

Take the example of Jamar Banks, who recently stabbed two subway passengers on the New York subway on Jan. 1 and 2. Those passengers are in stable condition. Banks has been arrested (checks notes) 87 times for crimes including weapons possession, assault, criminal trespassing and petty larceny. WHY. IS. HE. NOT. INCARCERATED?

The Soros philosophy is simple: Be as soft on crime as possible. Don’t enforce many laws already on the books. Allow American cities to become third-word hellscapes. So what does the sitting president of the United States do? He awards him one of the most prestigious medals a citizen can be bestowed.

‘This is why I will not prosecute most petty offenses through the traditional criminal court system,’ Bragg bragged upon taking office in 2021. ‘I will either dismiss these charges outright or offer the accused person the opportunity to complete a program without ever setting foot in a courtroom.’

Soros has also funded anti-Israel protests, some violent and deadly, have only divided the country further while indoctrinating students into Hamas-loving robots. 

One man certainly worthy of receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom is Daniel Penny, the Marine veteran who saved subway passengers from likely being assaulted or worse from Jordan Neely, who had declared he was going to kill innocents on that subway and didn’t care if he went to jail for doing so. President-elect Trump and Vice President-elect JD Vance invited Penny to the recent Army-Navy game, while Biden has yet to utter his name.

Fortunately, not everyone was thrilled to be photo ops for the current administration. The world’s most popular athlete, arguably the biggest since Michael Jordan, soccer star Lionel Messi, blew off the event. A ‘scheduling conflict’ was cited, but it’s obvious #10 chose not to be a prop. 

Biden will exit as the most unpopular president we’ve seen in decades. 

And on his way to the exit, he’s devaluing once-special awards like the Presidential Medal of Freedom to the point they’re as worthless as his word itself.

It is unclear what Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s day one priorities will be if he is confirmed to be the next Health and Human Services Secretary, but diet and nutrition experts suggest Kennedy could effectuate changes on a number of different fronts when it comes to healthy eating. These potential reforms might include overhauling school lunch programs, establishing new standards for seed oils and ultra-processed foods, setting limits on toxins, and more.  

Kennedy, who wants to ‘Make America Healthy Again,’ has been a staunch advocate for reforms to the food industry and President-elect Donald Trump has said he will have permission to ‘go wild on health’ if he is confirmed.

One major opening for Kennedy would be overseeing a revision of the federal government’s ‘Dietary Guidelines for Americans,’ one of the most powerful tools in terms of shaping public perception about what is healthy. The guidelines must be revised every five years and the deadline for the next update arrives in 2025. Kennedy, if confirmed, would ultimately be in charge of hiring the experts who draft the guidelines.

‘I know that they really want to focus on kids,’ Nina Teicholz, nutrition expert and founder of The Nutrition Coalition, told Fox News Digital. 

Teicholz, who has been in discussions with Kennedy’s team about the new national dietary guidelines, suggested that he could potentially use them to implement changes to school lunches, such as adding a limit on sugar, for which Teicholz said there currently is none, and bringing back whole milk to school cafeterias, which was prohibited under the Obama administration. 

The addition of whole milk to school cafeterias could limit how frequently children consume high-sugar, flavored-milk beverages, Teicholz said. She also pointed out that current recommendations that are keeping whole milk out of schools ‘is based on the saturated fat content in milk, but there’s really no good evidence to show that saturated fats have any negative effect on children.’

‘I think that Kennedy has aimed to stand for evidence-based changes to policy,’ Teicholz said. ‘So, that means not making policy based on weak science.’

Teicholz added that in addition to school lunches, there is other ‘low-hanging fruit’ associated with the guidelines that Kennedy could go after. 

Kennedy could use the guidelines to narrow the definition of ultra-processed foods, she pointed out, which is a sector of the food industry that Kennedy has previously been critical of. Teicholz also said that research on ‘ultra-processed foods’ is scant, and, therefore, you could see Kennedy commissioning more studies on such foods as well.

Dave Asprey, an author and nutrition advocate who has written several New York Times best-selling books about healthier eating, said he thinks it is likely Kennedy will also add toxin limits within the new dietary guidelines, aimed at pesticides and herbicides that have come under scrutiny. He also said he wouldn’t be surprised if Kennedy and his team were to implement new standards around animal feed.

Asprey added that Kennedy’s experience as a trial lawyer could aid him tremendously in initiating legal proceedings if he wanted to pursue companies that ‘are continuing to push outdated, unhealthy guidelines.’

‘Where can he actually impact real change? The dietary guidelines – because they control how we feed our kids, what we do in hospitals and a lot of our public policy,’ Asprey said.

Kennedy has recently been courting support for his nomination on Capitol Hill, and, according to GOP Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala., Kennedy told him that he would exercise restraint and use a light touch when seeking to regulate the food and agriculture industries.

But, according to Mara Fleishman, CEO of the Chef Ann Foundation, a healthy-eating nonprofit, the Trump administration’s desire for a more limited-government approach to governing could clash with Kennedy’s efforts to reform the food industry.

‘I think time will tell what – if anything – RFK Jr. can, or will, do,’ Fleishman said.

Fox News Digital reached out to representatives for Kennedy but did not receive a response.