Tag Archives: Attorney Alan Dershowitz

A Not-So-Surprising Change

Posted on by

Alan Dershowitz has been a voice of reason for a long time. He has been outspoken and fair in his commentary on current events. Although he has been a Democrat, he has not been blind to the events around him. Alan Dershowitz has now become a Republican.

On Tuesday, Hot Air reported:

What happened? It starts with Democrats’ sharp turn toward anti-Semitism with Israel as its political golem, but as Dershowitz argues, that serves more as a harbinger for a broader radicalization within the party. The catalyst came last week when most of the Senate Democrat caucus voted to withhold funds for Israel’s defensive systems, where the scales fell from his eyes on the power of anti-Semites within the Democrat Party:

The Democratic Party has become the most anti-Israel party in U.S. history. Last week all but seven Senate Democrats voted for an arms embargo against the Jewish state, and an avowed enemy of Israel, Abdul El-Sayed, is gaining ground in the Democratic campaign for U.S. senator from Michigan.

There is no denying that the hard left, anti-Israel wing of the Democratic Party has moved from the fringe to the mainstream. Until recently there was an age gap, with younger voters more strongly opposing Israel, but recent polls suggest that the trend now includes Democrats of all ages. Republicans have their own antisemitic fringe, but for now it remains a fringe.

Let’s hope it stays on the fringe. Antisemitism has never been good for anything.

The article quotes Alan Dershowitz:

I believe that the Democratic Party’s hostility to Israel represents a deeper and more dangerous shift away from the center and toward a radical approach that is bad for America and the free world. So I intend to work hard to prevent the Democrats from gaining control of the House and Senate, and I urge those who share my concerns about the increasing influence of radicalism in the Democratic Party to vote, campaign and contribute for continued Republican control of Congress. I will contribute money to Republican candidates, campaign for them, make speeches at Republican events, and urge pro-Israel Americans to change party affiliation or at least vote against Democrats. Until something changes, I will vote Republican for representative, senator and president.

Wow.

Wisdom From Alan Dershowitz

Posted on by

I truly love Alan Dershowitz. He is a man who tells the truth regardless of what his supposed political allies think. He has done it again.

On Thursday, Just the News reported:

Harvard Law School’s Professor Emeritus Alan Dershowitz said Monday that he wants the United Nations removed from the United States. 

“I would like to see the United Nations thrown out of the United States, and the United States get out of the United Nations,” Dershowitz said on the “John Solomon Reports” podcast.

Although the U.N. has been under scrutiny for years, the body has come under heightened criticism from members of Congress and faced allegations of antisemitism for how they have treated Israel amid the ongoing war in Gaza against Hamas. 

One of the reasons for the antisemitism in the United Nations (UN) is that there is within the UN a powerful voting bloc called the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). The organization was created in 1969. It’s charter states its goal as “revitalizing Islam’s pioneering role in the world.” The OIC Charter claims jurisdiction not only over Muslims inside its Member States (57), but also over all Muslims living in non-Muslim countries–including the United States (Chapter 1, Article 1, Objective 16).

The article at Just the News notes:

As far back as the mid 1940s, the U.N. and U.S. membership in it has been challenged. Sen. William Langer, R-N.D., was one of two senators to vote against the U.N. Charter. More recently, Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Ala., introduced H.R. 1205, the American Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2015, that would have required withdrawal from the organization. 

This year, Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced the DEFUND Act of 2025, which mandated termination of U.S. involvement with the U.N. Rep. Elise Stefanik, R-N.Y., in January 2025 also criticized the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for “not meeting the mission of the UN’s founding principles.”

“There were individuals in UNRWA who participated, who executed and committed terrorist acts against Israel on Oct. 7. [Yahyah] Sinwar, the leader of Hamas, carried an UNRWA passport. You had a Hamas data center under UNRWA headquarters, so the rot is deep,” she said.

After some major improvements, the UN building could be turned into luxury condominiums overlooking the river. The tax revenue would help New York City financially, and removing the diplomats with their diplomatic immunity would solve the traffic congestion problem in lower Manhattan. It’s a win-win!

No, It’s Not Illegal

Posted on by

On May 14th, The Daily Caller posted an article including Attorney Alan Dershowitz’s comments on whether or not President Trump should accept the gift of an airplane from Saudi Arabia.

The article reports:

Noted attorney Alan Dershowitz on Tuesday detailed two reasons President Donald Trump would probably be able to keep a 747 reportedly being gifted to the United States.

Qatar offered Trump the $400 million Boeing 747-8 for modification into a VC-25 configuration to serve as Air Force One, with the jet being donated to Trump’s presidential library after his term in office ends. Dershowitz, on “The Dershow,” noted that the Constitution’s “emoluments clause,” something cited by some critics, actually would not prohibit the gift to the United States government.

“Okay, here’s what the Constitution says: No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States,” Dershowitz said. “In other words, we don’t have sirs and knights, or anything like that. So we can’t grant titles of nobility and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, that means the president, shall without the consent of Congress, and this is the key, without the consent of Congress, accept any present, emoluments, office or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign state. Now, obviously, Qatar has the king. Oh, I guess he’s the emir, doesn’t say emir, he’s the emir, I know, I met him three times, the emir of Qatar, I know he’s an emir and I guess he comes under the category of king, prince or foreign state.”

This is how Attorney Dershowitz applies the law:

“Now this means no person shall receive the gift,” Dershowitz said. “We know that gifts are given to governments all the time… when you go to the Oval Office, where the White House, you see all over the place, gifts that have been given by foreign governments to the White House, great portraits of Winston Churchill and other things that are gifts the British government or other governments have been given to the United States. But when the incumbent president or any officer leaves, he doesn’t take the gifts with him, he leaves them. There have been a couple of occasions where the presidents of taken a few gifts, for example, letters they take letters now letters could be worth a fortune… I think presidents have taken some of those, but mostly they go to the Library of Congress or to the Smithsonian or to the presidential libraries.”

“Now presidential libraries are not the property of the president himself or of the former president,” Dershowitz continued. “They are the property of the Smithsonian Institute, the archives. They are the property of the United States of America, and so, if the emir of Qatar or the Qatari state gives the president of the United States a $400 million dollar airplane, that is not a violation of the emoluments clause, it’s perfectly constitutional.”

Dershowitz said that even if Trump were to keep the plane for his personal use, which would possibly make the plane a gift and thus conflict with the constitutional provision, critics of the gift still faced an additional hurdle beside the legal merits when it came to bringing the case in court.

Please follow the link to the article for further details. The bottom line is that this is much ado about nothing–typical for the Democrats.

The Future Of The DOGE Cases

Posted on by

On Monday, The Daily Caller posted an article about the court cases the Democrats have created to slow the project of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The article reports:

Attorney Alan Dershowitz said Monday that many of the injunctions blocking actions by President Donald Trump, ranging from his executive orders to his efforts to address wasteful and fraudulent spending, will be thrown out on appeal.

The Trump administration is appealing injunctions imposed by federal judges that targeted the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order ending birthright citizenship, among others. Dershowitz said during “The Dershow” that the cases will eventually be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

“Nobody ever said that our system of checks and balances would make it easy to govern or would make it efficient to govern. No, no, the design of our system of checks and balances was to create enough power to govern effectively while, at the same time, denying any one part of our government enough power to create a tyranny. So we have to counter our system of checks and balances, and it’s working, even today, as we speak,” Dershowitz said. “The president issues executive order after executive order after executive order, and what do the states do? They get their attorneys general to bring a lawsuit.”

The article concludes:

“People keep forgetting, the bureaucracy, the bureaucracy, the alphabet agencies. They are not an independent branch. They are part of the executive, and the executive is the president. Now, it’s complicated, because Congress created many of these agencies,” Dershowitz said. “For example, you know some of them, Federal Communications Commission, federal security, federal drug, those are created by Congress, but they’re part of the executive department. Some of the people are confirmed by Congress, and so your argument is you can’t fire them, only Congress can unconfirm them, but that’s never been the rule. For example, the head of the FBI is confirmed, and all cabinet members are confirmed by the Senate, yet the president can fire any of those heads of agencies at his whim. He doesn’t even have to have a reason to do it.”

I wish Congress and the judges would read the Constitution and decide to follow it.