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.
Tags
Who is online
96 visitors
“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.”
Not even close
The New Republic and Vox? Really? It’s common knowledge that since 1968 the democrat party has moved much further to the left than the GOP has to the right.
RUMP IS THE BIGGEST THREAT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND DEMOCRACY.
Actually it’s the people who are trying to undo the results of the election by trying to remove him from office before the next election who are the real threat to democracy and our constitutional republic.
Who is that author of that claptrap?
I guess that you will have to go to the source, the Bezos Er I mean Washington Post and find out. The author is right.
If you don't respect the source, why did you post the seed? I use my WaPo freebies on the 1st day of the month.
Actually, no, NO he isn't. James Madison's Federalist 10 has NOTHING to do with the EC, nor was the goal of the EC about equalizing state votes.
READ Federalist 68. It proves just how naïve Hamilton really was.
Really? Here is an excerpt from Federalist 68 that has proven to be ridiculously naïve:
There are multiple methods to accomplish change, a Constitutional Amendment being the most unlikely.
BTFW. what ever happened to conservative's heralding of the majority?
Good point, though the 2/3 and 3/4 are the other way around. 38 states would have to ratify an amendment to the constitution doing away with the electoral college. 13 states can make certain it never happens.
Would please get your facts correct so you are somewhat credible
More BS for those who have not idea about our government and it's formation
Au Contraire, the 'moral majority' wanted mob rule desperately.
I respect the author, not this particular source. I could have seeded the article from any of several publications that carried it. The photo is actually from the same article but from Jewish Daily World. I linked in to the WaPo originally from Real Clear Politics.
The moral Majority acted entirely within the bounds of the US constitution.
Not surprising, considering his ridiculous 'opinion'.
Yet still desperately wanted mob rule. Luckily, they never were a majority.
Is that why religious conservatives tried to use the ballot box to deny LGBT people the right to marry? They have also used the ballot box to try to deny women the right of abortion and to lessen the religious rights of other religions.
We do. It will take about 38 states to change the Electoral College, and I seriously doubt that 38 states are going to change things so that 2 or 3 states get to decide who will be President.
Only of the majority of the EC.
Oh the irony. About 70,000 votes in 3 states won Trump the EC.
Say, Vic, do you remember all the hullabaloo over getting rid of the electoral college when Obama was President? Or when Clinton was? Or when Carter was? Or LBJ?
I don't recall hearing 1/1000th of the whining I hear about it now.
Why do you figure that is?
The 'moral majority' were NEITHER.
It may have something to do with progressive parenting and not preparing children for the real world.
True. That’s why a presidential election is really 51 separate non cumulative majority votes to win the electoral votes of each of those 51 races. So whether you win a state or district in the case of DC, Nebraska, Maine by 1 vote or 4,000,000 votes means nothing. Either way you get the EV of that jurisdiction and it means nothing anywhere else. So the narrow votes in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan you mention are as it turned out more important than the 5,500,000 margin that Hillary ran up in NY and California.
Or the Kerry campaign attempt to question the Ohio result in 2004 so he could win the EC with fewer popular votes.....
How are progressive teens not prepared for the real world? Are they not sufficiently brainwashed to be both religious and republican?
The voting in Ohio was very corrupt. I live here and I saw it. It was obvious from June 2004 that the vote was going to be tampered with.
You mean home schooled children aren't prepared for the real world.
The voting in Ohio was very corrupt. I live here and I saw it. It was obvious from June 2004 that the vote was going to be tampered with.
Of course, of course.
Democrats have never lost an election, ever, without tampering.
They need safe spaces
It is a shame that you cannot prove that.
Are you suggesting that Democrats need to tamper with the vote to lose?
It's a shame I have to prove what is a well known FACT, but here it is from THE HUFFINGTON POST:
Any thinking person would realize that it has to do with the fact that all of them won the popular vote.
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.
Actually Obama did that and Trump is simply trying to undo the damage to our system that his attempted coerced transformation wrought upon us. Trump is the cure for the disease that was the entire Obama regime.
Democrats, like small petulant children, want to change the rules because they are afraid they can't win under the same rules that have governed us all our lives.
They are acting like spoiled little brats and should be dealt with accordingly.
So well said and you are absolutely right as usual.
[removed]
[Deleted]
[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 )!
The constitution is a contract, the supreme law of our exceptional land and within that contract are the only two legally acceptable ways of amending it.
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
A social contract or political contract is an agreement between the people of a state and the government of a state. The people agree to follow certain rules made by the government. These rules are usually called laws. Laws help to make sure people have rights and that their rights are protected. One kind of social contract is a constitution. A constitution says how decisions are made and sets limits on the powers of leaders and other people who have authority.
In the Age of Enlightenment, philosophers John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote books about social contracts. They saw good government as coming from social contracts. Rousseau wrote a book called The Social Contract. Both the United States Declaration of Independence and United States Constitutionuse the theory of social contracts. https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
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.
To ratify an amendment to the constitution of the United States 🇺🇸 it takes much more than a majority of the states. It takes a 3/4 super majority of them as in 38 of the 50 states.
I am aware. So what?
The South hasn't recovered from the last time it happened.
Actually it has and now days it’s the bi coastal liberal areas that no rue the day they kept the Union together. Now the south leads a coalition of states and regions that can often win political power at the house, senate, and presidential levels. Those of us on team red love the south and the power it has in our country now.
You need a broad super majority national consensus in order to change the constitution as it should be. No small narrow majority has the ability to cram key issues involving constitutional rights down the throats of an unwilling large minority. Only by getting activist liberal judges to re interpret the constitution according to their personal whim is our constitutional republic threatened.
The anti-abortion legislation passing all over the country refutes your claim.
Actually it’s the so called pro choice gang who did that, using activist judges to reinvent bs that was never in the constitution [deleted] That was exactly how the constitution wasn’t supposed to work. [deleted] legislated law out of whole cloth and we’ve been fighting to undo that [deleted] injustice ever since Jan. 1973.
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.
I am of a partisan perspective. I am religious. I am pro life. And while some of what I said was deleted, I meant and stand by every single word of it even if I can’t say it.
Activist judges do in fact legislate from the bench and manipulate the constitution to what they want it to mean and have the votes to enforce rather than using original intent. That is the definition of an activist judiciary.
Perhaps you should take your own advice and let it sink in. I’m right and you are not.
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
No. I’ve read the constitution and the Federalist papers and that’s enough for me.
Reading and comprhending are two different things.
Reading the individual words doesn't mean that you understand the ideas and legal concepts involved.
[deleted]
Now you just opened the door to ridicule. Some simply can't grasp the concept that anyone else besides themselves can actually read and understand anything. The usual "intellectual snobs" won't allow it!
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.
Nice example right there.
The intellectual part isn't the bad [part--deleted]
[deleted]
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...
[deleted]
Thanks for the favor, I needed a good laugh...
You are entirely welcome.
Too bad it was all for naught, though.
Thanks for your highly valuable contributions to my seed.
I really don’t care what secular progressives/ pro science as defined here think of what I believe. It’s a matter of getting our views, beliefs, ideas, opinions out there for neutral observers and do it as if the secular progressives aren’t even here if they can’t respond in a civil manner.
That’s exactly the bi coastal ivory tower secular progressive limousine liberal elitists we conservatives have to deal with as we try to live out our day to day lives in fly over Heartland America without their interference.
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.
Actually it’s four. We have no issues with the gulf coast states or the arctic coast state, only the North Atlantic ones and most of the Pacific Ocean states save one that also is on the Arctic.
Quite the multiple post trolling gang bang of personal insults and put downs directed at a conservative member and all allowed. What a big surprise.
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.
I love what Trump is thinking now as to where to drop off illegal aliens caught and released into this country. It gives an entire new meaning to the term sanctuary cities.
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.
Sanctuary cities are banned under Texas law.
And it has already been upheld by the courts.
I though y'all said bans don't work.
Thought that, did you?
Oh well...………...
As if Texas and Arizona should have to shoulder that load alone. It would only be fair to spread them out in proportion of the population of each state and urban area. It was political of the prior regime to make Texas shoulder this burden virtually alone.
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.
you are the one who listed 13 Texas communities and said taking them any further would be a “purely political endeavor.”
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
That video is awesome! Very good news. Too bad there isn’t something like that that he could sign regarding internet free speech....
I'm surprised Xx. I'd think that you'd be the last one that would want to force a religious college to be open to ALL groups.
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 )