Trump isn’t the biggest threat to the Constitution. Democrats are.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Who is the biggest threat to our constitutional order? It is not President Trump.
Ever since Trump took office, Democrats have been telling us he is an authoritarian who threatens our system of government. Well, today it is Democrats who are declaring war on the Constitution. Leading Democrats are promising that, if elected in 2020, they will abolish the electoral college and might also pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices — allowing them to marginalize Americans who do not support their increasingly radical agenda and impose it on an unwilling nation.
The purpose of the electoral college is to protect us from what James Madison called the “tyranny of the majority.” Each state gets to cast electoral votes equal to the combined number of its U.S. representatives (determined by population) and its senators (two regardless of population). The goal was to make sure even the smallest states have a say in electing the president and prevent those with large, big-city populations from dictating to the less populous rural ones.
No wonder Democrats don’t like it. Today, they have become the party of big-city elites, while their support is declining in less populous states of Middle America. Just look at a county-by-county map of the 2016 election — you can actually drive from coast to coast without driving through a single county that voted for Hillary Clinton. Clinton lost in 2016 because millions of once-reliable Democratic working-class voters in the American heartland switched their allegiance to Trump.
Thanks to the electoral college, Democrats have no choice but to try to win at least some of those voters back if they want to win the presidency. But if we got rid of the electoral college, Democrats could write off voters in “fly-over” country and focus on turning out large numbers of their supporters in big cities and populous liberal states such as New York and California. Unburdened by the need to moderate their platform to appeal to centrist voters, they would be free to pursue full socialism without constraint. If voters in Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania oppose spending tens of trillions on a Green New Deal and a government take-over of the health-care, energy and transportation sectors of the economy, tough luck.
The electoral college protects us from this kind of unconstrained radicalism, by forcing the political parties to broaden their appeal — which is precisely why more and more Democrats want to get rid of it. Fortunately, the framers of the Constitution required supermajorities for amendments — another wise protection against the tyranny of the majority.
But Democrats would have no such obstacles in dealing with another impediment to their radical agenda: the Supreme Court. Thanks to Trump’s electoral college victory, Republicans have been able confirm two Supreme Court justices and secure a conservative majority. Democrats have no one but themselves to blame for their judicial predicament. They were the ones who announced that they would not confirm a Supreme Court justice during George W. Bush’s final year in office , setting the precedent for Republicans to block President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland. And they were the ones who eliminated the filibuster for federal circuit courts judges — setting the precedent for Republicans to eliminate the filibuster for Supreme Court justices.
Democrats have miscalculated at every turn, and now their solution is to break precedent yet again — by packing the Supreme Court. There have been nine justices on the Supreme Court for the past 150 years. No matter, Democratic candidates including Beto O’Rourke; South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), Kamala D. Harris (Calif.) and Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) have all said that, as president, they would consider adding justices to the Supreme Court to secure a left-wing majority. The last president who tried this, Franklin D. Roosevelt, was stopped only because members of his own party rebelled. The Senate Judiciary Committee, then controlled by the Democrats, correctly declared his plan “an invasion of judicial power such as has never before been attempted in this country.”
It seems unlikely a Democratic president would face such a rebellion today. But unless Democrats win not only the presidency but also a 60-vote Senate majority, they would have to eliminate another minority protection — the legislative filibuster — to pass a court-packing bill. I suspect they would not hesitate to do so.
Taken together, the Democrats are proposing what amounts to a systemic assault on the foundations of our federal system. Democrats are freely pursuing a tyranny of the majority. We’ll see how it plays in Middle America. But if they do, then spare us the overwrought complaints about Trump. You can’t defend the Constitution while trying to tear it up at the same time.
Who is that author of that claptrap?
someone who knows of what they speak. and every word is the truth.
cheers
'Someone' isn't 'they'.
Whoever the author is, he didn't characterize the his quote from James Madison correctly. That tells me that he doesn't know of what he speaks.
Nope.
cheers
The right may cheer all they want about whatever is or isn’t in Mueller’s report, but the fact is this worthless POTUS has brushed off all norms followed by his predecessors. When the left eventually takes over the presidency, they will now have every reason to follow suit in any way they please, which will steamroll the future of the country’s leadership in the long term regardless of which party is in power. Trump has effectively launched the greatest deterioration of the American political system in the history of this country.
[Removed]
"Business Contracts" aren't "Fluid". The courts would laugh that argument right of the Court Room if it was used as a "Defense". Why is it Liberals think the "Constitution" as "Certified" by the founding fathers, has been "Fluid" ?
Contracts can be amended, extended, expanded. If the Constitution is set in stone, we'd not have any amendments.
Neither is static.
The "Amendments" weren't just put in ……. out of thin air. They were done "Legally", as is to be done with ALL contracts if one wants changes to a binding piece of parchment. Liberals just want to willynilly "Say" ….. "there are different "Meanings" of a "Binding Contract"..... when they "Feel" like it (Feelings, NOTHING MORE than FEELINGS )!
No it's not a contract and you have no ability to prove that it is.
tis civic 101
try to ignore that contract between the states and see what happens next.
Sure it is. I can't believe you don't know that. Let me help you:
Maybe you should thoroughly read through your own link
No kidding.
That doesn't mean it's impossible. It means it happens when the majority states agree to ratify an amendment. There was nothing in my response that could be construed as being based on feelings. I'm fact driven person.
I am aware. So what?
The South hasn't recovered from the last time it happened.
The anti-abortion legislation passing all over the country refutes your claim.
Drop the partisan and religious hyperbole.
The very core idea of freedom is that we do not have to ask permission before we act until there is a compelling reason for the state to say that we do not, so the US Constitution is not a verbatim listing of our rights. The idea that we have the right to privacy from government interference in our lives and our bodies is why the 4th Amendment's prohibition of search and seizure without a warrant exists. We do not need the government to tell us that we can do something. We can do what we want unless the government tells us that we cannot. This ruling by the court affirms that core idea of freedom and personal autonomy.
Nothing has been forced down your throat because nobody has every been forced to have an abortion, nor is your approval asked for or a limiting factor in the rights of others. Nobody is asking your approval or that of your church because you do not have the right to deny others their rights because of your religious beliefs. Not all Christian sects or even all Protestant sects agree with your religious beliefs, so do not try to claim that your beliefs are supported by all Christians. This county was not founded as a Christian country so your religious beliefs are not the basis of our laws.
Where is the Bible does Jesus or anyone else speak of opposing abortion? Genesis 2.7 says that we are not alive until we breathe air, so abortion cannot be murder because the fetus is not breathing oxygen.
Your constant claim of having things shoved down your throat by others is somewhat telling and unnerving for those of us with even a minimum knowledge of psychology. I'll stop here because if I say anything more it will be edited in purple.
Judges, even activist Judges, don't pass legislation Xx. Perhaps you should re-read the Federalist papers and the Constitution. Maybe they'll sink in this time.
There is no legitimate constitutional argument for denying a woman an abortion. An abortion is a medical procedure to end a pregnancy she doesn't want.
Really? How about you cite the Article and Clause of the Constitution about Judges passing legislation Xx. Or maybe it's in one of the Federalist papers. Which one?
Enlighten me. /s
true enough, those democats are still pissed off about that to this very day
cheers
The conservative south is a stronghold of the GOP and the TEAparty after they switched from blue to red after the passage of the Civil Rights Act.
History is not your thing, is it?
I know about Nixon's Southern Strategy very well. Those southern Democrats were never progressives. They voted for Democratic economic ideas such as unions and worker protection's, but they disagreed with northern Democrats on social ideas and religion. They split from the DNC after the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act because they felt like they had been ignored and abandoned by Texan LBJ. They tried to create Dixiecrat party but they slowly joined the GOP when they were wooed by Nixon and then Reagan when he appealed to their lingering racism and religious evangelism.
This fact should have been mentioned in your high school American history class if not your civics requirement.
The idea that the 1964 Civil Right Acts somehow flipped the south Republican is a myth. If you like simplistic stories that offer comfort to progressives, feel free to keep evangelizing a falsehood.
The data's out there.
The passage of the Civil Rights Act was the last straw for southern conservative Democrats. The first action where they felt hung out to dry by northern Democrats was the integration of the military in 1948. Then there were the integrations of schools, and then the Voting Rights Act, but the Civil Rights Act was what convinced them that the northern Democrats were ignoring their conservative social beliefs.
Those racist Dixiecrats are now the core of the GOP and the TEAparty.
Sorry you don't have a clue about the Constitution. Could I recommend so reading material on the matter
Reading and comprhending are two different things.
Reading the individual words doesn't mean that you understand the ideas and legal concepts involved.
[deleted]
Actually Tex, Xx has his own unique 'understanding' of those document which he shares with only a few here on NT. Usually, they quote snippets of those documents in support of something utterly unconnected to what they support.
Some day someone will have to explain to me how being an 'intellectual' became something to be ridiculed. Only those who would never be mistaken for an intellectual would do so.
I do not live on the coast, unless the south shore of Lake Erie is part of the coasts that you have in mind. I didn't attend one of the ivory tower schools.
And here I thought we were tri-coastal.
Also funny considering that the one lives on the west coast.
Schooling must not be a prerequisite to all.
Since Trump has been in the White House I wake up and hope to read that we have been annexed by Canada.
He was a home school valedictorian.
He beat out Fido, and, what was her name again,
oh yea, that pussy he was always yelled at for grabbing, think her name was , Pussy Galore,
named after his Gold Finger, in Octopussy, as his Doctor
No
way didn't spur off some LIES while others without the means DIED
Intellectual is the adjective you chose to describe just what kind of snob to single out. Therefore, intellectual IS the bad part...
Thanks for the favor, I needed a good laugh...
They are also Americans and they are the majority, so you cannot ignore their opinions or their votes, and substitute your own because it suits your far-right political or religious beliefs.
we ignored their opinions in 2016 easy enough.
the national majority means nothing and never will.
when the left has a majority, in the majority of states, lets us know.
I live on the third coast. luv every minute of it.
without any doubt, trump is the biggest threat to leftwing bs
day by day and bit by bit the lefts bs is being shitcanned and our republic restored.
one might ask themselves...
what happened only one day after trumps executive order on freespeech?
Trump cannot change the 1st Amendment with an EO. Your free speech rights have never been threatened because conservatives have not been fined or arrested for their speech.
Since they're already in Texas, the list of the closest sanctuary cities isn't hard to figure out.
Austin, TX
Brownsville, TX
Dallas, TX
Dallas Co., TX
El Cenizo, TX
Ft. Worth, TX
Houston, TX
Katy, TX
Laredo, TX
Mcallen, TX
Port Arthur, TX
Rockwell, TX
Travis Co., TX
Taking them any further than that would be a purely political endeavor.
I though y'all said bans don't work.
Only the uninformed would claim that they are. You must have already forgotten about the events at the San Ysidro port of entry. NM is part of Trump's debacle too.
Oh and BTFW Xx, many of the refugees are on their way to family all over the country. The Obama administration brought in FEMA and the Red Cross to address the needs of refugees. Trump dumps them onto the charities in towns and cities all across the border. You must be proud.
Then you named Arizona and I added NM and CA. That's how this shit works Xx.
If they cross in Texas, they shouldn't be 'farmed out' to other states.
IMHO, the more important reaction is from the charitable organizations that Trump is relying on to help the refugees he dumps. They put out a call for more medical volunteers so those already in service don't get burned out.
never said he changed the first amendment.
he is just taking cash from "learning institutions use that term loosely that do not respect our free speech rights, and, it is working
Um, we still had freedom of speech?
actually, we had more freedom of speech.
it is not surprising that universities don't want to give up on federal money.
cheers )