Rhonda Dowers

No One Judges America More

Big image

Biography and Credentials

Rhonda Dowers holds a law degree from the University of Denver and has had extensive experience within the judicial realm including four years as a law professor and an additional three as a prosecutor, with an 80% case success rate.


In addition to Dowers educational and work success, Dowers was chosen due to her intensive knowledge of the Constitution and high respectability with her clients and within the judicial court system. Dowers has always been a strong conservative mindset; however has claimed that the Constitution will always serve as the basis for her decisions and not her political opinions. Her younger perspective will also serve as a change in the typical white male dominance and provide a stable representation of the rising American population.

Originalist Philosophy

Dowers is a strong believer in interpreting the Constitution based on its original intent. The Founding Fathers founded this country with ideas in mind. Not only this, but despite what many "Living Constitution" vouchers say, the Constitution still holds highly applicable relevance to date. Any adaptations are to be made by amending the Constitution, not warping its current phrasing. In addition, holding a mindset that its jurisdiction changes based on times decreases the Constitution's importance and blurs the concept and power associated with "Constitutionality."

Freedom of Speech Philosophy

Out of all the aspects of the Constitution, Rhonda Dowers sees none more abused than the First Amendment. While this amendment does promise freedoms to American citizens, too often this permits the endangerment and discrimination of others and threats to our country. To speak more specifically, Dowers sees a massive need for reformation in public assembly sectors.

The only laws that put restrictions on public assembly state that all actions cannot be done on private property; however, the amount of slander involved with such assembly seems to go without punishment. As a society, we seem to want extreme punishment at the slightest notion of endangerment, so how come acts such as walking around in KKK outfits or flag burning continue to be endorsed as "free speech" when they entail hatred towards an entire ethnicity and political instability within our nation?

As a supporter of the original intent theory, Dowers believes that this change must result from past jurisdictions. As precedent, she notes on two specific court cases...


  1. While New York Times v. Sullivan was a freedom of the press case, it was one of the first defining moments of how slander was grouped legalistically. It stated that in order for slander to be marked as punishable, it must be proven to contain high amounts of malice and utter disregard for truth, two points that, while obscure, are definitely arguable against current civil right controversies.
  2. Gitlow v. New York is another case dealing with the danger of actions in order to determine whether or not they are punishable. While this case dealt specifically with Socialism, its decision, stating that if a perceived danger was rational and of high scale it could be prevented before its occurrence, is highly applicable to many cases of public assembly. In no way does Dowers want to restrict Americans' speech, but there comes a point where a line needs to be drawn.

This flyer has been paid for by the Justin Miller Committee to Promote Rhonda Dowers