« Reporting on the Woodpile Report | Main | »
September 21, 2016
It is not that Trump really understands or has thought deeply about the Constitution
but he is trying to do something fundamentally constitutional in my opinion.He wants to assert the right of the sovereign American people to control their government, which is the core constitutional principle. I think he understands this in an instinctive rather than intellectual way. But that’s OK because, one, most of the people who claim to understand it, don’t; two, most of those (very few) who do understand it are ineffectual at defending it; and three, nobody has really tried to do what Trump is doing in a generation. So who cares if his understanding is flawed? An Interview with Decius - American Greatness
Posted by gerardvanderleun at September 21, 2016 5:50 PM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.
Your Say
The mental habits which suit action do not always promote thought. The world is not directed by long and learned proofs. All its affairs are decided by the swift glance at a particular fact, the daily examination of the changing moods of the crowd, occasional moments of chance, and the skill to exploit them-
Alexis de Tocqueville
Posted by: james wilson at September 21, 2016 9:56 PM
Nice quote, James W.
Someone please tell me where Trump is proposing things that are unconstitutional. The claims of such I find not valid. Deportations: lawful. Limiting refugees and immigrants: lawful. Increased tariffs: lawful. But, I'm no lawyer, so...
Posted by: Casey Klahn at September 22, 2016 5:59 AM
I would venture that economically at least, Trump has gotten a helluva lot farther on instinct than the pointy heads ever got on intellect. Don't know how good business instinct translates to ability to clean up a political mess, but it couldn't hurt.
Posted by: BillH at September 22, 2016 7:01 AM
@ Casey -
Be careful in believing the person who may be a "Lawyer" is any more knowledgeable regarding the Constitution than you or any other lay person. I know many lawyers and none of them are any more knowledgeable on the US Constitution than my barber.
Lawyers are not "educated" people. They are trained liars.
Posted by: Terry at September 22, 2016 7:52 AM
Good point, Terry.
My point is that certain stripes of conservatives are bitching @ Trump and the constitution, but it isn't evident to me that he is pushing that envelope. Ergo, the argument in this post isn't sprung from the right question. IOW, Trump is not building anti-constitutional policies, therefore it is not a point to argue.
I'd like to see where I'm wrong on that.
Fukkingobama is wrong on the constitution 8 ways to Sunday, to include speaking against it. Then he tells you he's the expert.
It is a cold day when you grow up and realize that doctors and lawyers are no smarter than you. Politicians? Way down the list of smarts. I would say that in my life, the career field I have observed as being the smartest set is the military. Theories don't float for the military; death is a permanent proof of mistaken ideas.
Please, God. Some ex-military in high office. Please, I'm crying out for this. And, while you're at it, not too many of those from the air force. youknowwhatimsayin...
Back to the point. Presidents have always been out to hedge their power vs the balance of powers. Nixon was big on that. They want more, and for some reason it is the politic thing to do. They want things, and the balance of powers and the constitution are in the way. Now is the time for a non-politician.
Posted by: Casey Klahn at September 22, 2016 8:10 AM
Wanna find out who's intelligent?
Not smart, intelligent.
Talk to them about something they know very little about.
Talk to them about something that is going to affect their wallet negatively more so than anything else they will ever own.
Over the years I have been continuously appalled at how little the average person knows about homes, the ones they have lived in and the new one I am designing for them.
I heard that when meeting an *important* person you should envision them in a compromising position (maybe a fleck of lettuce between their teeth, zipper down, etc.) to bring them down off their high horse.
At the holy architectural design conference table I do not have to do such things. I simply have to pose a question that entails a lot of money, and that is when sphincters clench, reflecting pain in the faces.
Example: The wife wants the double hand carved Bolivian mahogany 10' tall front doors with matching sidelights and transom and the lawyer husband is in agreement until I pull the price list up on the tablet. She looks but the gleam in her eyes prevents her from seeing and the audible snap from his sphinc is overwhelming. They need to talk.
He aims his begging eyes at me and I save his ass again, by finding a less expensive reasonable facsimile and I have gained a new friend for life.
Even on a 2.2mil dollar home $135k for a set of front doors is pretty expensive considering $19k was for shipping.
Anyway, US law has nothing to do with the constitution nor does medicine or most anything else. The constitution is mostly parameters in which the gov't is required to follow and by the way there are no penalties for those who refuse to obey it, so the whole notion is moot.
When Tragg, in frustration, asked, "Who's law are you concerned with Counsellor?", Mason answered, "Why, my client's, Lieutenant".
Posted by: ghostsniper at September 22, 2016 11:44 AM