“The Senate Is There To Slow Things Down”

Mitch McConnell has used this lie over and over….followed by the GOP loyal…..they use this to try and explain why they cannot move bills forward…..

McConnell even went so far as to say the the Founders formed the senate to do this exact thing….to slow legislation down for calmer heads to prevail.

That is BS and illustrates how political idiots try to use the Constitution to explain their partisan attacks on our republic.  These people pretend to be all knowing and in reality they are a pack of self-serving individuals that care nothing for the plight of the nation.

In the formative years of our nation (1776-1787) the thought behind a ‘senate” was that it be……”… a natural social and intellectual elite…(that) would find their rightful place in the upper houses of the legislatures…..(that would) were to be the repositories of classical republican honor and wisdom, where superior talent and devotion to the common good would be recognized and rewarded…”

The Greek Thucydides observed….”to conduct the affairs of state in a safe and successful way, requires all the wisdom of the most talented and experienced members of the state, as well as vigilance and particular attention of the particular deputies of the whole people.”

Now look at the US Senate of today…..nothing about the worthless group looks like anything the Founders said it would.

A repository of honor and wisdom?  Really I have yet to see either in the Senate.

You?

There is a case for the abolition of the Senate…

The United States Senate exists today because the Constitution’s framers did not trust America to function without it. Unlike the House of Representatives, the “people’s House,” whose members were expected to be as prone to extremism and shortsightedness as the constituents they would represent, the plan was for the Senate to be the dignified, deliberative body that operated above the fray of politics. As Virginia delegate and noted optimist Edmund Randolph put it at the Constitutional Convention, a good Senate would “restrain, if possible, the fury of democracy.”

By this ambitious metric, the Senate is a failure.

https://www.gq.com/story/the-case-for-abolishing-the-senate

Even the longest serving member of Congress, John Dingell, also wants to see the Senate abolished…..

https://www.vox.com/2018/12/4/18125539/john-dingell-abolish-senate

I as well have called for ending the Senate and going to a unicameral system…..in all locations state and national…..https://lobotero.com/2021/03/10/thoughts-on-unicameralism/

US Senators earn $174,000….the leader (Mitch) makes $193,400…..that is great pay for part-time workers (and yes they are workers) they work about 3-4 days a week and about 6 months a year and it is great pay for nothing but obstruction and partisan BS.

But what about the “outside income” that all Senators have….Permissible outside earned incomefor Representatives and Senators is limited to 15% of the
annual rate of basic pay for level II of the Executive Schedule. According to the House Ethics
Committee and Senate Ethics Committee, the 2016 limit is $27,495.

Does this explain how members when they leave the Senate are millionaires?

Think about it!

When has anything good come out of the Senate…that “repository of wisdom and honor”…(sorry I tear up from laughter every time type that)

This country does not need this useless appendage of government any longer.

The US Senate is similar to the human appendix….once served a purpose but now it is a useless party of the body…..now that it is cancerous it is time to surgically remove the diseased appendage of the body politic.

My distaste of the US Senate is not mine alone…..

Teddy had it right on target…..“When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer ‘Present’ or ‘Not Guilty’.”
Theodore Roosevelt

And then there was yet another accurate observation…..“Do you pray for the senators, Dr. Hale?’ someone asked the chaplain. No, I look at the senators and I pray for the country.”
Edward Everett Hale

For those that are interested in seeing what the case was for adding the Senate to the government…..I suggest Federalist 62……https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed62.asp

Then there is AntiFederalist 62…in opposition……http://resources.utulsa.edu/law/classes/rice/Constitutional/AntiFederalist/62.htm

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Those States Rights

College of Political Knowledge

Civics Series

I would like to take a closer look at the whole states rights thing and what it means to the country today.

  • States’ rights refer to the political rights and powers granted to the states of the United States by the U.S. Constitution.
  • Under the doctrine of states’ rights, the federal government is not allowed to interfere with the powers of the states reserved or implied to them by the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
  • In issues such as enslavement, civil rights, gun control, and marijuana legalization, conflicts between states’ rights and the powers of the federal government have been a part of civic debate for over two centuries.

The debate over states’ rights started with the writing of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. During the Constitutional Convention, the Federalists, led by John Adams, argued for a powerful federal government, while the Anti-federalists, led by Patrick Henry, opposed the Constitution unless it contained a set of amendments specifically listing and ensuring certain rights of the people and the states. Fearing that the states would fail to ratify the Constitution without it, the Federalists agreed to include the Bill of Rights.

In establishing American government’s power-sharing system of federalism, the Bill of Rights’ 10th Amendment holds that all rights and powers not specifically reserved to Congress by Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution or to be shared concurrently by the federal and state governments are reserved by either the states or by the people.

In order to prevent the states from claiming too much power, the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause (Article VI, Clause 2) holds that all laws enacted by the state governments must comply with the Constitution, and that whenever a law enacted by a state conflicts with a federal law, the federal law must be applied.

Here is a sticking point for me.

Federalism…..in the beginning of this country it was a brilliant idea that helped bring the country together as a single unit…..it was the only way to get all 13 colonies to sign on to a national government…..however today the concept is driving the political divisions that are running rampant….each state has become its own tiny ‘duchy’ within the bigger empire.

I gave my thoughts on federalism recently on my op-ed blog, Gulf South Free Press……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/15/does-federalism-remain-a-good-idea/

The biggest obstacle to any substantial progress in our country is the bicameralism that we live under….I feel we would be better served today with a unicameral system of government…..again my thoughts on this topic……https://gulfsouthfreepress.wordpress.com/2021/03/08/thoughts-on-unicameralism/

Sorry about that but I got a bit off topic….my bad!

The biggest drag on our country is the whole concept of states rights which was outlined in the 10th amendment……for those ignorant on the US Constitution…..In American government, states’ rights are the rights and powers reserved by the state governments rather than the national government according to the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

That is a very simplistic look and leaves open a whole array of opportunities for abuse…..like voter suppression, cultural BS, and labor oppression.

The authors of the Constitution were experts in the use of language, and in the construction of legal documents. Under any form of statutory construction, the use of the comma followed by the word “or” presents an alternative to the previous phrase. And the Constitution also clearly differentiates between the states and the people. The use of the word “people” in that last phase presents an alternative to the powers of the states – the power of the people, not of individual states.

The use of the word “people” in the Constitution, from the “We the People” of the Preamble on, means all the citizens of the United States separate from whatever identity they may have with individual states. There was a draft of the Preamble that used the words, “We the States,” but it was changed to emphasize the nature of he Constitution and its effects. The Constitution was intended by the founders to be a compact among the people of the United States, not between the federal government and the state governments, or among the state governments. The people are citizens of the United States, not of individual states.

(Dan Riker)

The Constitution provides for the states to maintain some rights and responsibilities, but none that can trump those of the federal government. The Constitution clearly states that it, and federal laws adopted under it, are the supreme law of the nation. The Constitution provides for no means of changing it except by amendment; no means of dissolution of the union; no right for any state to withdraw from the union; no right for any state to wage war against any other state; no right for any state to engage in foreign affairs; no right to determine, or grant, citizenship; no separate citizenship of states; no right to restrict the rights of citizens to vote.

10th Amendment means that the reserved power is shared between the states and the people. It does not create a body of absolute “states’ rights.” It means that states have the power to act where the federal government has not, and when such acts will not conflict with federal laws or responsibilities.

Destruction from within.

Then there is everybody’s hero Bubba Clinton as president he screwed things up royally with his lame ass vision of redefining Federalism….his program only added to the climate of division…..Clinton did nothing positive for the Party or the country…the only people that benefited from his presidency were his corporate masters….and his legacy is still screwing the country.

His new ideas on Federalism went something like this….

1–establish national goals and allowing states flexibility in choosing means to achieve..

2–waiving national guidelines to enable states to design approaches to problem solving rather than following national guidelines.

3–helping states learn from other’s successes

I would say the GOP has learned Clinton’s ideas all too well.

Right now there is only one way to change this slide into the past…..and that is through a change in the amendment and that would take a Constitutional convention and that will never happen in today’s political climate.

For now we will remain a plot of land with several duchy that have NO interests in a strong nation….only on petty issues that does not strengthen this nation in any way.

It will remain a country of individual good as opposed to the common good….on which this country was originally founded.

We are today betraying the original intent by the Founders and that betrayal is destroying this country from within.

I do not see this division ending in my lifetime…..a sad demise of the original intent.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

To Revere The Constitution

There are a lot of BS spread by politicians about our Constitution….and now I have seen an article that gives five reason it should be revered…..I will add my thought after each reason….

The Constitution is an amazing document…..but I think that since it is full of 18th century thinking that no longer applies in the 21st then it is time to bring the document into the present…..

This article written by Michael Warren for realclearpublicaffairs.com and his five reason for this revere thinking are:  My thoughts will be in parentheses…..

1). A Written Constitution. Nearly all scholars agree that the Constitution was the first written document that established a major nation’s government. For thousands of years, mankind had been ruled by some combination of fear, force, custom, and tradition. Having a written document that laid out the powers of government and the duties of the representatives of “We the People” was a huge leap forward, both for the rule of law – that is, the idea that the law governs rather than the personal desires of those in power – and the argument that mankind has the capacity to participate in self-government.

(No where did us mere peasants ever participate beyond the vote…it has never been a self-government)

2). Approved by the People. Until 1788, as far as we know, no major country in the course of human history put its form of government up to a vote of the people. The people in each state voted to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, where a new governing document was created through robust debate. Unless the ratifying convention of any respective state approved the Constitution, it would not be adopted, another amazing advancement. We literally created a new social compact for the country that was agreed to by the people of each state.

(Was it?)

3). Separation of Powers. Although England and ancient Rome had some pretense of separation of powers, it was muddled and often subverted. Until the Constitution, no major central government in world history firmly divided the three major functions of government into co-equal, separate branches. By dividing power between the legislative (Congress), executive (President), and judicial (Supreme Court) branches, the Constitution protects liberty by making it difficult for one person or group from taking complete control of the federal government.

(Those days are long gone….the Senate works as an independent from parts of the government…and with the Trump president the separation no longer existed)

4). Checks and Balances. Hand in glove with separation of powers, by giving each branch the ability to check the other branches, the Constitution better protects liberty. It requires that the three branches act together to enact policy and ensure that it does not violate the Constitution’s text. For example, the president can veto legislation passed by Congress, but Congress can override that veto with a two-thirds vote. The president is the commander in chief of the military, but only Congress can fund it and declare war. Even if Congress passes legislation and the president signs it into law, if it violates the Constitution, the Supreme Court must set that law aside. The president nominates judges, but the Senate must approve nominees. Again, liberty is protected by limiting the power of any particular branch of government.

(And yet the Senate can stop any and all social reform that the majority disagrees with…even if it is wildly popular with the peasantry.)

5). Enumerated Powers. Most governments in human history presume that the government is all powerful, and then carves out certain restrictions where it cannot act. The Constitution does exactly the opposite. Unless the Constitution specifically enumerates – that is, lists – powers where the federal government has the authority to act, it cannot do so. By substantially limiting the reach of federal power, the doctrine of enumerated powers safeguards the people’s liberties.

(And then Trump was elected and all this ‘protection’ went down the toilet)

***Reminder—my thoughts are in parentheses***

If you would like to read the full article…..https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2021/03/16/top_five_reasons_why_the_constitution_should_be_revered_663616.html

Again I do not want to scrap our Constitution.

I just believe that it could use a massive update to make in represent the present situation.

And there is the problem…..it will take a Constitutional Convention….and that would open up a whole new can of worms…..in case you slept through your civics class….

A convention to propose amendments to the United States Constitution, also called an Article V Convention or amendatory convention, called for by two-thirds (currently 34) of the state legislatures, is one of two processes authorized by Article Five of the United States Constitution whereby the United States Constitution may be altered. Amendments may also be proposed by Congress with a two-thirds vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.

To become part of the Constitution, an amendment which has been formally proposed must then be ratified by either—as determined by Congress—the legislatures of three-fourths (presently 38) of the states, or state ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states. Thirty-three amendments to the United States Constitution have been approved by Congress and sent to the states for ratification. Twenty-seven of these amendments have been ratified and are now part of the Constitution. As of 2021, the amendment convention process has never been used for proposing a constitutional amendment.

(wikipedia)

The biggest problem is our system…..a system where there are many deliberative bodies that have to agree……the rub for the convention debate. Liberals are concerned that the conservatives could amend the Constitution to beat back the role of government. Conservatives aren’t sure they could keep liberal amendments off the table. No one knows just how a convention would work, how long it would last, what rules would guide debate and amendments, or what unexpected pieces might emerge.

Just how much of a cluster f*ck is this process?

Take the Equal Rights Amendment of 1972.

“Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”

And as of 2021 it has NOT be ratified….after almost 50 years and we still do not have the ratification…even after extensions to the deadline for ratification.

One common argument against the Equal Rights Amendment is the fact that the U.S. already has the 14th Amendment, which states:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

A major argument against the ERA is that the ratification of the ERA would mean laws cannot be passed to protect men and women differently. The ERA states, “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex,” implying all laws must affect men and women equally. That standard is present in legislation surrounding racial discrimination. An example is present in Adkins v. Children’s Hospital from 1923. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional to guarantee women a minimum wage because earlier, the court had ruled that men could not be guaranteed a minimum wage. The court based its decision on the 19th Amendment.

Just an example of the BS that flies around any attempt to ratify an amendment or to change the Constitution in any way.

Revere? 

I think it is an amazing document…..amazing but does not mean that it is representative of the nation of today.

I now step off my soapbox…..and allow others to state their thoughts.

You may type now.

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Are We Still A Constitutional Government?

College of Political Knowledge

Lecture Series……

Whenever someone does not agree with me about our democracy that tells me that we are a constitutional government (republic) not a democracy.

These days of protests and division among the people the question arises……..

Okay if that is can we still claim to be a constitutional government?

Answer the first question…… just what is a constitutional government?

The government of the United States cannot be intelligently discussed as a constitutional system until government; and the answer to that question is in effect a theory of politics.

….Read On……

What is Constitutional Government?

I know Americans are proud as punch over their ground breaking Constitution….but recent events have me asking do we truly believe and support and constitutional government?

Legal scholars spend a lot of time debating the proper way to interpret the Constitution. Political scientists study voting blocks on the Court or trends in judicial appointments. But to think about the future of constitutional government, we should give more attention to the ultimate authority behind the Constitution – “We the People,” as the Preamble calls us.

The Founders did not think all people were equally capable of sustaining constitutional government. At the outset of the French Revolution, for example, Alexander Hamilton wrote to his friend Lafayette, expressing a “foreboding of ill.” He warned, among other things, about the “vehement character” of the French people and their susceptibility to “philosophic politicians” and “speculatists” [sic] propounding doctrines not compatible with “the composition of your nation.”

Social trends in contemporary America are warning signs for the prospects for constitutional government even here. I don’t mean that we will soon succumb to a terrible tyranny. Still, we should not be at all confident about maintaining our well-defined constitutional boundaries or the political stability they have provided us for so long.

The main problem we face is the degree of political polarization. Americans have always had differences. After all, we fought a terrible civil war in the Nineteenth Century. But after that upheaval, subsequent generations found it easier to work together – and postpone debate on issues where they could not agree. The political parties were diverse coalitions. Democrats and Republicans were as likely to disagree with fellow party-members as with adherents of the opposing party.

Do We Still Support Constitutional Government?

Well do we still support a Constitutional government?

Be Smart!

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

American Mind–Civics Class–Part One

In these trying times I thought that a good hard look at what can be termed as the American Mind or the American Identity or the American Experience……..you choose what you think this series is about.

This series originally posted in Real Clear Public Affairs…..a good chance to renew the Civics lessons for most people especially now with an important election looming.

The 1776 Series is a collection of original essays that explain the foundational themes of the American experience. Commissioned from distinguished historians and scholars, these essays contribute to the broader goal of the American Civics project: providing an education in the principles and practices that every patriotic citizen should know.

We start with the Constitution of the United States of America….”How Democratic Is The Constitution?

It’s hard not to notice that in the United States, political arguments frequently turn on questions that, in other democracies, nobody talks about. What are the powers of the legislature? What may the executive do? What can the states do without begging permission from the national government? Why can’t an idea popular with the public become a law?

For these and other questions, the answer will always involve the American Constitution, a document more than two centuries old that has been amended (not counting the Bill of Rights) only 17 times. In the wake of the 2016 election—in which, not for the first time, a candidate who lost the popular election entered the White House anyway—talk about the Constitution’s “defects” has become more insistent. Why can’t America be more like other countries? Do you worry about fracking? Boris Johnson was worried, so he banned it, because he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and his party controls the House of Commons. He can do pretty much whatever he wants when he has a sufficient majority.

https://www.realclearpublicaffairs.com/articles/2020/02/14/why_is_the_constitution_not_democratic_484132.html Some say the Constitution is an economic document more than anything……https://www.fte.org/teachers/teacher-resources/lesson-plans/efiahlessons/constitution-econ-doc/

In fact, the inquiry which follows is based upon the political science of James Madison, the father of the Constitution and later President of the Union he had done so much to create. This political science runs through all of his really serious writings and is formulated in its most precise fashion in The Federalist as follows: “The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties in the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of society into different interests and parties… The most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination, A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit and party of faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.”

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/an-economic-interpretation-of-the-constitution-of-the-united-states/ Any thoughts or comments? Learn Stuff! I Read, I Write, You Know “lego ergo scribo”

The True Meaning Of The 2nd

I have written numerous times about the US Constitution especially the 2nd amendment…..and what it means…..https://lobotero.com/2013/01/30/why-the-2nd/  Please read my thoughts before you continue on……

Before we go any further…..I am a gun owner, actually own several, and I do not want guns removed from our society….all I ask is that a debate occur that does not descend into name calling and ranting……my thought is that we do not need assault weapons for civilians….there are many types of firearms that can be used for hunting and home security without these.

My thoughts are if you need an assault weapon for hunting then maybe going hunting at Krogers or Whole Foods would be better for you or if you need a multi bullet weapon for house security then a shotgun would be a better choice.

All that said is just my thoughts.

Now a few articles that have some good and informative points.

Part of the miserable ritual that follows American mass shootings is the lament that nothing can be done unless we get rid of the Second Amendment. New York Times columnist Bret Stephens reasoned thus:
There’s a good case to be made for owning a handgun for self-defense, or a rifle for hunting. There is no remotely sane case for being allowed to purchase, as [Las Vegas mass murderer] Paddock did, 33 firearms in the space of a year. But that change can’t happen without a constitutional fix. Anything less does little more than treat the symptoms of the disease.
The pro-gun side echoes this claim of textual determinism. My colleague James Fallows, writing on Monday, quoted a correspondent who is a “famous novelist” as saying, “the Constitution trumps (if you’ll pardon the expression) all prudential or policy considerations. It makes them utterly irrelevant.” Justice Clarence Thomas, as I recently wrote, makes the same claim—that the text of the amendment and the Supreme Court’s case law create a “fundamental right” that is violated by a ban on assault weapons, a waiting period for gun purchases, or limits on high-capacity magazines

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/03/second-amendment-text-context/555101/

There were a series of articles about gun rights and the second amendment……for further reading…… https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/02/big-data-second-amendment/607186/

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/constitutional-case-gun-control/600694/

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2019/08/congress-pass-gun-laws/595534/

After reading those links….then I have another one for the gun nuts on the Left…..

The Socialist Rifle Association is an educational organization dedicated to providing the working class with the information they need to be effectively armed for self and community defense. This includes all manner of community defense, from the right of the working class to possess firearms to the ability to be well versed in the fields of medicine, disaster relief, logistics, agriculture, and survival skills. Our goal is to provide an alternate to the mainstream, toxic, right-wing, and non-inclusive gun culture that has dominated the firearms community for decades. We seek to provide a safe, inclusive, and left-leaning platform for talking about gun rights and self defense, free from racist and reactionary prejudices, while providing a platform for the working class to obtain the skills necessary for all aspects of community defense.

https://socialistra.org/about/

Your thoughts?

Watch This Blog!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Trump Vs Constitution

Note:  I admit that I do not like Trump….but then I was not thrilled with Obama or his predecessor GW Bush so this op-ed is not an attack on the person just on some of his policies and the games he seems to play with the US Constitution.

If you read the Constitution then look at the things Trump has done objectively….without the lens of politics…..you will see the areas that are in question.

I agree with an article in the American Conservative…….it is time in this countrey for the Constitution to become the battlefield……

The United States Constitution—praised as “the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man” by Lord Gladstone—should be the battleground of American politics. If that does not happen, our Republic is doomed to self-ruination like all other Empires. They all collapsed, among other things, by exalting raw power over constitutionally safeguarded liberty, and the armored knight over the moral philosopher.

The Constitution’s summum bonum is individual liberty—the opportunity to develop faculties and pursue ambitions free from domestic predation or foreign aggression. The Declaration of Independence elaborates that every individual is endowed with a natural right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, i.e., wisdom and virtue. In contrast, governments, communities, or groups have no natural rights. Indeed, the government’s purpose is to secure the natural rights of individuals.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/our-constitution-must-be-the-battleground/

I know that there will be many that think that this is some sort of ‘”left wing” hack job but anyone that knows me will dismiss that accusation……like I said read your copy of the Constitution and then think about the things that are being done in the White house……

It may be the case that Trump has read the Constitution. But to go by his public positions, it remains a question whether he understands it. From early in his campaign, critics have been consistently astonished by his seeming indifference to the Constitution, as he has launched attacks on the press, on mosques, and on other institutions explicitly protected by the Bill of Rights. Or consider Trump’s private meeting with Republican members of Congress, when the candidate expressed his admiration for Article 12 of the Constitution, apparently unaware that there are only seven Articles. “He was just listing out numbers,” said Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-Texas), a Trump supporter. “I think he was confusing Articles and Amendments.”

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-constitution-guide-unconstitutional-freedom-liberty-khan-214139

You do not need to be a Constitutional scholar to see that there is some violations being had…..I say let these violations be viewed and let the consequences fall where they may.

Americans, all Americans, need to re-read their Constitution and decide if the document is still the law of the land….or has it been replaced with partisan bullsh*t and sent to the dust bin of history.

We, The People…..”

Those are the opening words of the Constitution of the United States of America…..words that turned the land into a nation. The problem is the Constitution is a useful political prop but must have little knowledge of what the document says or what it does.

I have heard that some opponents of Obama have accused him of crapping on the Constitution…..I wait for the update…tell me just where he violates the Constitution..

However on the other side of the political aisle there is our present president and the violations of the Constitution…..I know that NONE of his supporters would ever consider the Constitution violations……but there they are like it or not……

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-constitution-guide-unconstitutional-freedom-liberty-khan-214139

All in all it is the “emoluments clause” that concerns me the most…..“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

It was inserted into the Constitution as a way to prevent sitting leaders from accepting foreign gifts or payments, in order to ensure complete neutrality from outside influence and to prevent even the appearance of corruption.

The clause applies to “all officials holding appointed positions in the Judicial and Executive Branches of the national government,”