Does President-elect DJT have the gravitas to do what is necessary? Without compromising the Constitution?
AH! There’s the rub.
No extra-constitutional executive orders. No bulls-in-china-shops (in spite of the fact he has no verbal filters!)
Of course, as with GWB, it won’t matter what he does or says to some people, just because he’s (in their view) the wrong person.
Bayou Renaissance Man has a take on the recent (and ongoing) unpleasantness (in part):
I’m astonished that no-one has yet pointed out, publicly and loudly, that the organized anti-Trump protests following his victory in last Tuesday’s election are as organized, and as manipulative, as most of the other protests we’ve seen all year long. It’s the same professional agitators, going from issue to issue and from state to state, seizing on any popular idea and transforming it into a lever to undermine our nation, our democracy and our constitution.Consider:
- The Black Lives Matter protests were very clearly organized. Numerous police forces admitted or asserted that ‘outsiders‘ came into town to make trouble, then moved on to the next protest. They were funded by the same source that bankrolled the Ferguson riots ‘protests’.
- As soon as the North Dakota pipeline protests geared up a few months ago, what happened to the BLM protests? Suddenly there was hardly a mention of them. The reason was simple – the activists turning the pipeline protests into a violent anti-police, anti-The-Man free-for-all were often the same ones that had been behind the BLM nastiness.
- Now that President-elect Trump is the focus, what’s happened to the pipeline protests? All of a sudden we don’t hear Word One about them in the media . . . because those organizing them, and spearheading the violence there, are now organizing the protests and spearheading the violence in the anti-Trump protests.
I’d love to be able to examine arrest records, or attendance records, from police forces all over the country, to see how many names and how many faces cropped up at all of the above protests over the past year. I’m willing to bet money there’ll be a lot of overlap.
One hopes Mr. Trump will find a way to cut the Gordian knot that ties all these anti-constitutional, anti-democratic, anti-American organizations and individuals together. It’s long overdue . . . and entirely necessary, IMHO.
An interesting perspective. Could it be that the same protesters move from protest to protest – almost as if it is their job?
(Remembering the OWS protesters and the similar folks who appear after mass shootings)
Finding a way to ‘cut the Gordian knot’ (as Peter puts it) + my .02…
And, of course, recognizing the other guy remains President for a while longer…
Yep. I’m speaking of the recent dustup of things long-time ago said by candidates.
Mr. Trump has been recorded using language that might have originated in a high school locker room. As has Secretary Clinton (at least in print). And her husband. And Jack Kennedy.
And, The President.
Use (or non-use) of such language, of course, is not a qualification for The Presidency.
My question is, what ever happened to the character of individuals? Used to be persons with character aspired to be The President. Washington, Jefferson and John Adams come to mind. All persons of character. Each very different. (Yes, I know Washington and Jefferson owned slaves…)
They were human. I suspect they might have uttered socially-inappropriate language in private moments.
But they rose to the challenge to move this Constitutional Republic forward.
I don’t see that in any of the current of recent candidates.
Now, it’s reported by the Clinton’s that they have victims of rape by Mr. Trump coming forward! Seriously? Not only is the timing questionable, but the whole pot-kettle thing!
I know politics by it’s very nature is dirty. Regardless:
I weep for The Republic.
I ran across this posting on Free North Carolina. I don’t know if I’m smart enough to do the requisite research needed to confirm or deny the premise. But, it IS interesting!
I seem to remember a similar postulate made regarding the Sixteenth Amendment (Income Tax).
Wouldn’t it be interesting to find these premises to be true?
David Lawrence, editor of the US News and World Report, argued in late September 1957 that the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution was never ratified by the requisite number of States, and is therefore null and void. This amendment-by-duress has been used since 1865 as the basis for federal intervention into the constitutionally-specified authority of the individual States, both North and South.Bernhard Thuersam, http://www.Circa1865.com The Great American Political Divide
The Fourteenth Amendment a Disgrace to Free Government
“A mistaken belief — that there is a valid article in the Constitution known as the “Fourteenth Amendment” — is responsible for the Supreme Court decision of 1954 and the ensuing controversy over desegregation in the public schools of America
No such amendment was ever legally ratified by three-fourths of the States of the union as required by the Constitution itself. The so-called “Fourteenth Amendment” was dubiously proclaimed by the Secretary of State on July 20, 1868. The President shared that doubt. There were 37 States in the union at that time, so ratification by at least 28 was necessary to make the amendment an integral part of the Constitution. Actually, only 21 States legally ratified it.
So it failed ratification. The undisputed record, attested by official journals and the unanimous writings of historians, establishes these events as occurring in 1867 and 1868:
1. Outside the South, six States — New Jersey, Ohio, Kentucky, California, Delaware and Maryland — failed to ratify the proposed amendment.
2. In the South, ten States — Texas, Arkansas, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Louisiana — by formal action of their legislatures, rejected it under the normal processes of civil law.
3. A total of 16 legislatures out of 37 failed legally to ratify the “Fourteenth Amendment”. (…)
HERE’S A LINK TO THE ENTIRE POST, INCLUDING THE REMAINING SIX POINTS OF EVIDENCE.
And, as a side note, U.S. News and World Report used to be a middle-of-the-road, well-reasoned magazine, when David Lawrence was at the helm.
He passed in 1973.
I remember (way back in the 1970s – when I got into gun stuff as an adult) fantasizing that I lived in a State that had concealed weapon permits! How cool would THAT have been? Being able to be armed – discreetly!
One of the reasons I wanted to become a cop was that very reason. It seemed sad that few States had permittage, and most of them were may issue. Usually meaning unless you were one of the special few (or perhaps funds changed hands) you either did nor carry concealed, or did not carry concealed legally!
Now, here we are in the new century, and the tide has turned. A significant number of States how have concealed weapon laws and some even passed Constitutional Carry – no permit needed!
Specifically, with the addition of Missouri, 11 States (22% of the 50!) no permit required!
41 States, and Guam(!) now have some provision for shall issue permits! (Wikipedia)
Of course, we still have States like California (and New York), with their difficult to get may issue permits, and checkerboard of convoluted and restrictive gun laws.
And with the ever-present nonsense by the Statists equating gun ownership with terrorism. (Hillary?)
BUT, things have definitely improved since the 1940’s, and in spite of warnings to the contrary regarding every CCW (carry concealed weapon) and Constitutional Carry law being passed, there has been no blood in the streets!
(It seems every time such legislation is suggested, the ANTI-RIGHTS folks trot out the same, tired meme.)
It’s been said that the American Revolution was started and maintained by just 3% of the population. In spite of the ubiquitous onslaught of the anti rights control folks, we seem to be winning!
Hooray for the responsible, law-abiding citizens, going about their private business invoking their right to possible self-defense!
Now, if we could just reverse the rampant surveillance and searching without warrant! I know, one Amendment at a time…
Black men who try to avoid an encounter with Boston police by fleeing may have a legitimate reason to do so — and should not be deemed suspicious — according to a ruling by the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.
Citing Boston police data and a 2014 report by the ACLU of Massachusetts that found blacks were disproportionately stopped by the city’s police, the state’s highest court on Tuesday threw out the gun conviction of Jimmy Warren.
Okay. I get if you come from a fractured subculture wherein male leadership is largely lacking, and you are poor and a minority, and have been taught to fear ‘the man’, you might want to run if confronted.
Even if you hadn’t done anything.
BUT, the idea that fleeing the police (IF you are a Black man) your flight cannot be viewed as suspicious(!?)
Not to mention the whole racist component – What about a Black woman? Or a Latino? Or a White? Or someone of mixed race?
I see a whole can of worms being opened here for additional court cases…
Once again, activist judges take the reins, in lieu of those who swore to protect and defend The Constitution.
What? They DID swear?
I’m not surprised. So have Presidents, Congressmen, Senators, FBI heads and Supreme Court Justices over the past
60 70 100 years.
And no one (of any power) has called them on it!
While I’m philosophically libertarian (small L), I’m not certain the current national Libertarian Party embodies my personal views. Or that of the party I first registered for in 1976…
But, I get Laura’s point.
I’d an email exchange with a democratic socialist (who is a dear friend and reads this blog) following Gov. Johnson’s faux pas, who said she had been considering voting for him, but, now was forced to consider Secretary Clinton.
Jokingly, I responded it was too bad she was choosing the lesser of three weevils.
Her response was Vote for Cthulhu! Why pick the lesser evil?
I fear she is doing precisely that!
(In a World where many elected officials take an oath, but have no idea what The Constitution even means (or are committing perjury), and won’t stand for the Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem (their right, of course…) )
(Of course, there is always the Chicago Cubs’ manager – on my sidebar (bumper sticker sales for charity!)
This, courtesy of Wirecutter…
For the first time, a federal judge has suppressed evidence obtained without a warrant by U.S. law enforcement using a stingray, a surveillance device that can trick suspects’ cell phones into revealing their locations.
U.S. District Judge William Pauley in Manhattan on Tuesday ruled that defendant Raymond Lambis’ rights were violated when the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration used such a device without a warrant to find his Washington Heights apartment.
The DEA had used a stingray to identify Lambis’ apartment as the most likely location of a cell phone identified during a drug-trafficking probe. Pauley said doing so constituted an unreasonable search.
If you are keeping score, that’s the anti-constitutional Statist bastards – 356
Liberty and Freedom – 3
I’m speaking of this Republic.
With Rome, it was either when the Ottoman Turks took Byzantium (Constantinople) 1453 AD or when a barbarian deposed the last western Roman emperor 476 AD (ancient history About.com)
My Western Civilization professor said it began with (and I’m quoting here) “Moral decadence and pleasures of the flesh!” (to the cheers of the 400 or so horny underclassmen)
What is/was the beginning of the end of this Constitutional Republic we know as The United States?
The Whiskey Rebellion? (1791)
The Civil War? (1861)
Federal income tax (1913)
Direct election of Senators? (1913)
Establishment of the Federal Reserve? (1913)
The National Firearms Act (1934)
Or is it an amalgamation of these and many other things, eating away at our Constitutional substance, punctuated by further federal government oversteps such as Ruby Ridge and Waco? No-knock warrants, followed by airport searches and sobriety checkpoints. Massive surveillance of our electronic communications. Prohibitions of Speech seen as ‘politically-incorrect’. The killing of Blacks by police – whether or not legitimate actions – spun by self-serving propagandists into an ersatz race war?
Now followed by widespread racial civil unrest, punctuated by acts of terrorism against civil authority.
I’m certain all ‘civilizations’, be they primitive neolithic cultures like the American Indian when the White man first laid eyes on him, or the Romans, or the Christian Turks all thought they would endure forever.
And so have most of we Americans.
I guess the true question isn’t what was the tipping point.
It’s what do we do NOW?
from a miniseries The Dark Ages
Ever wonder HOW to do that, exactly?
Remember the post I did a while back (along with many other bloggers) regarding this administration’s ongoing attempts to restrict the rights of law-abiding Social Security recipients?
Did that tick you off? It did me.
How may one address – or rather redress – this grievance?!
I was given an answer! (from the G.O.A., in part)
A Brief Note from the Executive Director
Earlier this week, Gun Owners of America emailed you about Obama’s latest gun grab — a ban that is aimed at Social Security recipients who want to pass on their gun collections to their children and grandchildren.
Unfortunately, we neglected to include in that email, the sample text which can be sent to the Social Security Administration. It was posted on the web version of this alert, but was not included in the email.
I apologize for that omission.
You can now find the sample text below, with instructions on how to send it to the Social Security Administration — thus registering your opposition to these diabolical regulations which jeapordize gun collections in hundreds of thousands of American homes.
As always, I want to thank you for your activism.
Gun Owners of America
How to Take Action
The Social Security Administration has posted regulations here. And they are inviting comments from the general public.
While you can fax or mail your comments, they “strongly recommend that you submit your comments via the Internet.”
So here’s what to do:
- Visit the Federal eRulemaking portal at http://www.regulations.gov.
- Use the “Search” function to find docket number SSA–2016–0011.
- Submit your comments, using the pre-written text suggested below or by uploading your own text.
NOTE: The regulations state that, “The system will issue a tracking number to confirm your submission. You will not be able to view your comment immediately because we must post each comment manually. It may take up to a week or more for your comment to be viewable.”
You have until July 5 to submit your comments.
Suggested Response to the Social Security Administration (below)
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to you regarding the SOCIAL SECURITY GUN BAN — docket number SSA–2016–0011 — which was formally published in the Federal Register in May.
I am in opposition to this rule and urge the administration to withdraw it.
We have seen this game before at the hands of the Veterans Administration: To date, over 250,000 law-abiding veterans who have served their country honorably have had their constitutional rights stripped from them.
The VA claims veterans can contest the removal of their rights — and can petition to have them restored. This rule claims the same right to petition.
But you know — as does the VA — that that process costs at least $10,000. In fact, to be successful, the cost would be more like $20,000 to $100,000.
For this reason, data shows that a tiny fraction of these veterans have successfully used these illusory mechanisms to reclaim their rights.
Under this proposed rule, if a person is on Social Security disability by reason of a mental health impairment, then their gun rights are gone. Period.
The regulation promises to aggressively search for and take away the gun rights of Social Security Disability recipients with PTSD, ADHD, post partem depression, Alzheimer’s, etc.
But understand this: Some parts of the regulation, like the definition of “adjudicated as a mental defective” in proposed CFR 421.105, are applicable to all Title II recipients, including old-age programs.
Make no mistake: It is clear to everyone that your hidden agenda (disarming seniors) is much broader than your ostensible agenda (disarming the disabled).
Thus, under this language, if a senior can’t “manage their own affairs,” they are specifically acknowledged by the Social Security Administration as being a “mental defective” for purposes of making them a prohibited person.
Barack Obama claims that this regulation would involve 75,000 persons (who would unconstitutionally lose their fundamental rights), but you understand that the number is more likely to be in the multiple hundreds of thousands.
Then you propose to turn in the names of these innocent law-abiding Americans to the FBI, for the sake of unilaterally stripping them of fundamental constitutional guarantees — all without a hearing or any due process whatsoever.
And, while you propose to do this on the basis of your victims’ incompetence (“mental defect”), you simultaneously assume they are competent to know what you are doing to them — and to round up and dispose of all their firearms in order to avoid becoming Instant Felons.
You probably don’t know this and probably don’t care: But octogenarians are not a high-crime demographic. Very large numbers of them have firearms which they intend to pass on to their children, however.
And most of them would be surprised that they were being turned into “Instant Felons,” subject to SWAT teams and potential prison sentences.
I understand you’re marching to the beat of a Leftist political drummer. But understand this: groups like Gun Owners of America will work with Congress to defund this corrupt exercise.
And every senior citizen in America will go into the polling booth this fall with the knowledge of your unsuccessful little effort to turn them into criminals.
For all these reasons, and more, I urge you to withdraw the SOCIAL SECURITY GUN BAN — docket number SSA–2016–0011.
I did it. It took less than 5 minutes. You have almost a month to do the same. Or, draft your own response!
Many of us whine BIGGOV isn’t listening. We need to actually say something to them, not just grouse amongst ourselves. Here is an opportunity.
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #9 of 22)
I always thought my public school education from the 50s and 60s was enough to get me by. Certainly more learned than the folks who
deliberately misunderstand the three-fifths compromise and the electoral college. And forget those college professors lecturers who taught communism in Constitution classes! (Who could I mean?)
I have often used the argument of the phrase ‘promote the general welfare’ as an argument against both welfare and enforcement thereof.
Thought I was pretty smart in so doing.
Now, here comes (or rather came) Judge Story’s interpretation regarding ‘the general welfare’.
From long before most of us were born!
that the power of Congress to legislate for every object which in their opinion might be for the benefit of the people, pressed by Mr. Hamilton in the Convention, was six times, directly or indirectly, rejected by that body; and, in spite of that, his followers have sought to construe these words as meaning what the authors of the Constitution had six times successively rejected; while Judge Story’s construction lands us in the same morass, a government of unlimited power, though he reaches it by a different road.
These facts show that a large majority of the Committee of Eleven that reported these words to be incorporated into the first clause of §8 Art. I were strongly opposed to the views of Mr. Hamilton and those of Judge Story that lead to the same end, tho’ by different routes, a government of unlimited powers!”
This speech was delivered before the annual meeting of the Georgia Bar Association at Tybee Island on June 2, 3, and 4, 1927.Mr. PRESIDENT and gentlemen of the Georgia Bar Association: I make no apology for presenting to you today as the subject of my address a technical and abstruse question, be cause it involves the foundation stone of our form of Government.
The subject to which I invite your attention may be put in this form, “Judge Story’s position on the so-called General Welfare Clause of the Constitution of the United States.”
The words “the general welfare” are to be found in two places in the Constitution—in the preamble thereto and in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. All reputable writers concur in the statement that the words of the preamble to the Constitution constitute no grants of power, and therefore our investigation is confined to the words as found in Article 1, section 8, clause 1. which reads,
“The Congress shall have power lo lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
Apparently, lots of wisdom existed before I was born! :-P
(And, now for something completely different – as promised)
22 VETERANS COMMIT SUICIDE DAILY
Even ONE of these heroes making this choice is unacceptable! (Day #6 of 22)