Yes. Yes. Yes. I know there are going to be some people who object to this post. What I'm asking here is that you please consider what I'm saying and decide accordingly. If you support Donald Trump, I have to emphatically say that this is not personal, I'm not here to bash your guy or take him down. It's about the Constitution and it is very important.
There are some things of importance in this election cycle that I think the American People have lost track of. I consider it my duty as a sworn defender of the Constitution to point some of them out.
The Constitution defines the maximum limits of the federal government's power. That is what it is. The elected representatives, president, and Supreme Court, are supposed to keep the government operating within that power. It is in their very job description. In order to qualify for that job they have to show reasonable experience, and talent for, and concern for, doing so. By constitutional limits the current federal government should be maybe one hundredth of the size and power that it currently is. The federal government has almost no constitutional power to interfere in the lives of any individual.
The Tenth Amendment unequivocally states that the federal government can't take any powers that are not specifically named within the Constitution. For them to do so is a violation of your rights as an American. There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority or power to do anything about anybody's healthcare; for example. Nothing. Zero. Nada. Zip. If the supreme law of the land were to be understood and followed, it would quickly be realized that it is none of the federal government's authority, responsibility, or business, to decide how you should be taken care of or how you should take care of yourself. This very rarely spoken of concept is called, "freedom." I would suggest that the American People take some time to get reacquainted with it.
There are so many things the federal government is doing, that they have no authority for, it just boggles my mind. It's like the Constitution's limits on federal power don't even exist anymore.
This is the basis of my objections to Donald Trump as president. It also happens to be the basis of my objections to Hillary Clinton.
You could have the greatest and wisest king of them all, with power absolute, and everything would be perfect...for a while. Sooner or later someone else will be the king with power absolute.
This is why I'm a big fan of George Washington. Three times he was in a position of being able to gain absolute control of this country. Three times he turned it down, in addition to taking steps he thought would prevent anybody else from getting that kind of power.
1) It takes a giant man to hold a lot of power and wield it with wisdom. 2) It takes a bigger one to walk away from that kind of power without the slightest temptation of using it for corrupt purposes. 3) It takes a person of great foresight and understanding of human nature to make certain any power that can be abused is dispersed so that nobody else can use it.
Many people have made arguments that Donald Trump might be number one. I won't argue that point here. He's been quite a success and there is no denying that. However, I can find no evidence of number two or three within him. Quite the contrary, I find a lot of proof that he might be the opposite.
As mentioned above, it is the job of the president , generally speaking, to "protect and defend the Constitution." The more detailed explanation of his job is outlined in Article Two of that founding document. A quick index of how someone would do in that capacity might be, rather crudely, decided simply by the number of times he or she mentions it. If a guy talks about the Constitution a lot it obviously means something to him and based on that he might also be expressing his understanding and desire to see it upheld.
From Trump's website there are five mentions of the Constitution in his "Positions." Two under Second Amendment Rights. Three under Immigration Reform. Total; five.
From Cruz's website under "Issues" there is an entire section dedicated to "Restore the Constitution," inside of which are nine mentions of the Constitution. One mention in the section regarding the 2nd Amendment. Two under "Religious Liberty." Two under "Life Marriage and Family." Total; fourteen.
But this is just a simple survey of the number of times for the occurrence of the word. It does not suppose that all mentions of the word would be in a context that would comply with the Constitution. It also does not take into consideration that any other things mentioned on the pages have anything to do with the Constitution. If this simple means of deciding were not detailed enough you would have to look further and find out the relevance of the candidates positions to the Constitution.
The funny thing is that the people are sick of politics as usual. This is what is behind the rise of Donald Trump and with this position I am totally sympathetic. He seems, and is, different than the politicians we are used to. Yet if you go through his policies he's proposing the same things as we've gotten from the Democrats and Republicans. In every measurable way, from the political standpoint, he is the same kind of milk-toast unconstitutional moderate that the "politics as usual" crowd of establishment types keeps spawning. That he delivers it with an unusual and effective punch is all he really has going for him from that point of view.
His healthcare position is what Sanders would give us. His boarder policy is what Cruz would give us. The rest falls, with rather unstatesmanlike behavior, in the middle somewhere.
His stance on the 2nd Amendment is utterly ridiculous. For example, he supports the idea that all concealed carry permits should be recognized in all states. Fine. On the surface this seems to make some kind of sense. But why in the hell do I have to have permission from the government to exercise a constitutionally protected right to begin with?! See? It's a false premise based on the consideration that the federal government or president should have anything to say on the matter at all. You could say that it is a conservative position but it is based totally on a liberal perspective.
It just goes on and on like this. If you accept the position that the Constitution does not matter or does not specifically limit the power of a president, all of what he says sounds great from a lot of different perspectives. I might even be persuaded to the idea that some of it makes sense from our current position. But really, if the highest law in the land doesn't matter that much, is the consideration, the people are trying to elect a monarch because they are expecting the king to do what they want him to.
The problem with the federal government is that they have too much power that they are not supposed to have and are using it against us. Now we have Trump, who if elected is going to use the power that he's not supposed to have to our supposed benefit. That he will use it to our benefit is nothing objective; it's faith.
The job of the president is not supposed to be to use existing federal power to anybody's benefit or detriment. The president is specifically supposed to keep the federal government operating within Constitutional limits, so that there is no power there to be used for anybody's benefit or detriment in the first place.
Donald Trump, exactly like the current federal government, is showing no sign that he understands the limits that the federal government is supposed to have, nor does he show any sign that he will bring the federal government back within the powers it is supposed to be limited to under the Constitution. Thus he, as well as the rest of them, are operating on a false premise.
Operating on this false premise the best case scenario is that he might be able to use the current levels of government power to make things better. That's fine. He will be gone in four to eight years, barring impeachment, assassination or natural death. That's not fine and leaves us right back where we are now. The government will still be oppressively giant, too powerful and corrupt.
The president of the United States is supposed to make absolutely certain that the federal government operates within the parameters of the Constitution. Almost all problems the country is having at the federal level, stem only from them not following the highest law of the land, and taking and using power they shouldn't have in the first place. The focus of any candidate, in my mind, should be to bring the federal government back within its limits.
If we define government corruption as "using the power of the government, that it's not supposed to have or use, to the end result of getting what we want, in compensation for money, votes or political power," then what is the long term benefit of voting for somebody who comes up with great plans for using the power he's not supposed to have in the first place? Several years down the road we'll just be right back in the soup again. That's the problem with monarchy. No matter who the great and compassionate king is now, his successors will sooner or later really suck. And when the monarch is elected and called, "Mr. President," the results can be pretty much expected to be the same.