The Attitude of a Constitutionalist.

I pity the foo!

Wow. It’s been two weeks since I’ve written an article. I have to remedy that. The problem is that there’s really been nothing on my mind that’s been going on out in the world that I’ve had an urge to write about. It’s not that there isn’t anything going on, because there always is, it’s just nothing that I as a constitutionalist particularly care about. So rather than picking any particular issue I’m going to make it about attitude.

Let me give you an example.

Donald Trump and Stormy Daniels are in the news again along with some guy I’ve never heard of before named Alvin Bragg. Apparently this guy, Bragg, wants to arrest and indict the former president for something related to Stormy Daniels being paid hush money to keep quiet about some supposed affair The Donald had with her.

Did this really happen? Don’t know. Don’t care. Will The Donald be arrested? Don’t know. Possibly interesting but regarding the constitution, don’t care. Will it affect his run for the presidency? Okay, there I care about it a little bit because as my regular readers know, I am not particularly thrilled about former president Trump’s performance in office due to the very large numbers of unconstitutional things he supported as well as his profligate deficit spending. I only care about that to the degree that, while I would rather see him as president over any Demoncrap, I would prefer to have any truly constitutional and fiscally conservative Republican become president over him.

The only point where I would have any concern over this is if Trump should become president again it becomes an issue of the same sort as his former buddy, William Jefferson Clinton. Article Two, Section Four of our beloved Constitution says; “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” There’s bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors in the Stormy Danials case even if it happened many moons before. Even then I wouldn’t have a lot of concern because it is not a high crime or misdemeanor against the United States. It’s more about his reputation than it is about how it affects the country.

“Yes, but Brett, isn’t it important to have a person in office with honesty and integrity?” you might ask.

Of course I care about honesty and integrity. In personal relationships. I’m not looking to marry the guy. I’m looking for someone who can follow the Constitution. I’ve got the attitude of an employer. “Can this guy do the job?” is a legitimate question if I’m hiring him to work for my company. “Does he lie to and cheat on his wife?” is not. “Does he drink?” is not. “Does he believe what religion I am?” “Is his wife pretty?” “Does he have kids?” “Did he build a skating rink decades ago?” While it may be interesting and show his character it is not directly relevant to how well he gets his work done.

For a guy running as president there is only one thing I care about. Will he follow the Constitution?

If he talks about his plans for expanding universal health care I will not vote for him. If he talks about his plans for banning guns I will not support him. If he talks about regulating Big Tech with regards to free speech I will not support him. If he talks about Medicare, Medicaid or Social Security and how they should be expanded I will not support him. If he talks about controlling companies who create energy I will not support him. If he talks about expansion of the federal govern in any way I will not support him. If he talks about regulating healthcare I will not support him. If he talks about raising our taxes in any way or increasing spending I will not support him. If he talks about regulating the schools I will not support him. If he talks about how the government should be involved in abortion, either way, I will not support him. In short, if he talks about anything that is not directly mentioned in Article One, Section Eight or Article Two of the Constitution and “how the government should do something about it,” I will not support him.

Why? Because Article One Section Eight and Article Two are the sum total powers of the president with regards to domestic policy. Constitutionally he has a rather free hand on national and international relations. That’s what the federal government is supposed to do. They are not supposed to be involved in the daily lives of the People in any way. Just as I would do at work, if an employee starts talking about how he’s going to violate the company’s rules, it’s time to start looking for a different person to fill the slot.

That’s what I am. That’s what I mean about being a one hundred percent constitutionalist. I only care about issues that impact how the federal government follows the Constitution. If it has nothing to do with the Constitution, like for example the generally frumpy appearance of the current FLOTUS or stunningly beautiful appearance of the former FLOTUS, I really don’t care. I don’t care if the president is married or has kids. I don’t care if they are the most dorky or ugly creations of God or the most beautiful or the best or the worst. They don’t hold the nuclear codes.

If a candidate for any position in the federal government mentions how they should do something which isn’t directly and obviously backed by the actual text of the Constitution itself, they automatically go into my “NO!!!” list. This is especially true for anybody who is currently holding any position in the federal government or military.

I expect them to hold to the Constitution and nothing else. That is what their oath is. The oath is not to the country. It is to the Constitution.

There are issues like J6. There are peaceful protesters, guilty of nothing more than trespassing, who have been held without trial for several years now. Evidence has been withheld regarding the actions of Jacob Chansley and the Capitol Police Officers who escorted him around the building and let him into the Senate Chamber. Let’s not even talk about the murder of Ashli Battitt. This is a clear violation of the Fifth and Sixth Amendment.

Speaking of J6 and Trump’s second impeachment, he did nothing wrong regarding J6 and the impeachment was the most politically bogus abuse of the power of Congress in recent years. Anything the Demoncrap Party says about Trump is bogus and personal, and has nothing to do with his constitutional performance EXCEPT FOR THIS ONE THING!!!

Pay attention here folks. This is important.

I’ve never understood why the Demoncraps INSIST that J6 be called an insurrection. Unarmed mostly peaceful people invading one building and interrupting a government function is not anywhere close to the same magnitude as overthrowing a government, which by definition is what an insurrection really is.

So follow me here. President Trump is on record by the second impeachment for his role—as bogus as the charge is—in inciting a riot which is now publically accepted as the “Insurrection of January 6^th.” I refer you now to the United States Constitution, Amendment Fourteen, Section Three, which says; “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same….”

They, by naming the J6 protests an insurrection, plus naming President Trump as a participant in them in his second impeachment, are trying to disqualify him from running for office again. The other shoe hasn’t dropped on this and the most likely reason is in its timing. Mark my words, it will happen.

As I’ve said, I don’t care for President Trump because he’s not particularly strong on the Constitution but I do care about this because it is a prime example of the Demoncraps in Congress abusing their power in an unconstitutional way.

I can just scroll down my Twitter feed and comment whether I care about an issue or not. When I do care about it it’s certain it will have something to do with the Constitution. It is the only way that I view anything in politics. I don’t care about Demoncraps or Republicans or their parties. I don’t care about the political games they play with us and each other to win. After all, what this is about is the attitude of a constitutionalist. The government should follow the supreme law of the land regardless of party.

I care about climate change but not in the way that you might think. I think it is a hoax to bilk us out of money and power. Should we try to keep the Earth clean and functioning? Certainly! However, politically I only care to the degree that I can’t find anything in the Constitution that gives the federal government any authority to do anything whatsoever about it domestically. Carbon dioxide is plant food. That is a well known fact.

There is nothing in the Constitution for the federal government to do anything about Covid. Zero. Zip. Nada. All of the regulations, shutdowns, mandates, etc., which the American People have suffered at the hands of the federal government have been in direct violation of the Constitution. The only point they could possibly be involved is if it was of the order of magnitude to become a threat to national security. This also goes to every single one of the Covid relief payments, which were only necessary because of their unconstitutional interference in the first place. All bills and regulations spawned at the federal level have nothing to do with any valid power of the federal government, especially the ridiculous tens of millions of dollars of money sent to Pakistan for gender studies as part of a Covid relief bill. Which president signed that one by the way?

I care about things like the Ukraine but only because it is an unconstitutional issue. If we wanted to support an ally in a declared war in which we were a direct participant it would be a different issue. But to take money from our pockets to send to another country? Nope. There have been numerous calls to audit the money being sent there to help them. This would be a totally ridiculous waste of time when every single penny sent is a direct violation of the Constitution. This by analogy would be like auditing the expenditures of a bank robber to make sure such spending is completely ethical.

I don’t care how much a man loves his country. Really. I don’t care if he hugs the flag, kisses it, takes it to bed with him or has it branded into the flesh of his chest. It’s one thing to say he loves this country. It’s another thing if he is a government official and says he loves this country while not following his oath to the Constitution. If it were possible to hate this country and follow the Constitution I would prefer him over someone who claimed to love it while not following the Constitution.

Could there ever possibly be something more unconstitutional than reparations for slavery? To have money taken from people today who never owned slaves and pay it to people today who never were slaves, when the last time there was slavery in this country was 155 years ago is an outrage.

I don’t care if Oprah Winfrey thinks she’s been oppressed.

I don’t care if the nominated leader of the FAA is black, white, green, purple, male, female, trans, educated, uneducated, human or any other thing you can name in the universe. Why? Because the FAA is not supported anywhere by the Constitution. It is none of the federal government’s business under the Tenth Amendment.

I don’t care about the Pledge of Allegiance. It should not be mandated in schools. It is unconstitutional in that it claims the United States to be one nation when the US is really fifty sovereign nations. Additionally it was written by a socialist, likely with deliberate intent against the Constitution.

The notion that “reaching across the isle to get things done” really fills my mind with outright disgust. You cannot compromise with insanity. You cannot fulfill your oath to the Constitution by compromising it’s principles with people who are clearly against it. Compromise is only for the rational.

Any politician who calls the United States a democracy gets a lot of points against them. The United States is a republic per the Constitution, Article Four Section Four. Any politician calling this country a democracy is working directly against the Constitution.

Biden said once upon a time that he would cure cancer. You know what? That’s none of his business. I can’t find the “Cure Cancer” clause in the Constitution. Yet some criticize him for not keeping his promise to do so. Well, he’s not supposed to! Curing cancer is a great thing for doctors to do. It is not a great thing for governments to do.

There are a lot of calls for the federal government to ban the mutilation of children under the premise that they were somehow born the wrong sex. As much as I am against this kind of “surgery” I would also be against the federal government being involved in it. This is a thing for the governments of the States to do under the Tenth Amendment. Do I think the States should all ban this? Hell yes! The federal government has no authority either way with this, nor should they have. This is one of those things where if you give them the authority to do what you want, sooner or later someone will come along and use it in a way that you don’t want. Think ahead.

Recognizing things like this rapidly takes some practice but it is time well spent. First you have to know the Constitution to know what things the federal government is allowed to do as well as things they are not supposed to be involved with. The best practice you can do, and I very highly recommend that you do, is to first learn the Constitution, particularly Article One Section Eight, as well as the Tenth Amendment.

Then go to some speech a politician recently made and read it. Preferably you would do this in a word processor of some sort but you could also just print it out and do it with highlight markers. Highlight the things that the politician says he wants to do that are not specifically mentioned in Article One Section Eight. This is easier than you would think it is because there are only about twenty things that are mentioned there as federal powers. Then read the speech and highlight with a different color the things that are specifically named in Article One Section Eight. Count the words up that are highlighted with the different colors and divide one into the other. That would give you a percentage ratio of what the politician does to follow/violate the Constitution. Remember, everything not specifically mentioned by the Constitution is a State’s power per the Tenth Amendment.

When you do this enough times with enough speeches made by people whom you support, and find they are really not very fussed about actually following the Constitution, you too will develop the attitude of a constitutionalist.

The Donald, CPAC and that Pesky Constitution

Aaaah ssssooo! Here I am about ready to write another bad article about Donald Trump. I really don’t mean to but there’s just too much that he keeps saying and doing that is outside of the bounds of the Constitution and the Constitution is just my thing.

I don’t usually play political games and truthfully I hate politics. I rarely comment on Demoncraps because…you know…they’re an evil bunch of crap and are rarely worth my time other than to say that they couldn’t act in favor of the Constitution to save their very lives.

I only comment on people who may benefit from it or who I have some hope. Even then it is only with the possibility that they may fall down a flight of stairs through their mistakes and somehow land on their feet. I have some hope for the Republicans in this, that somehow the true conservatives within the party will somehow gain enough power to wrest control of Congress or the presidency and actually be worthy of their oaths which they have all taken toward the Constitution.

I used to do this thing where I would take someone’s speeches and sift through them and give a score as to how well what they were saying conformed to the Constitution. Just as a couple of examples for the sake of comparison you will find attached here President Reagan’s First Address to Congress which scored at 74.1%. President Trump’s First Address to Congress scored 52.6%. Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address was so horrendous I couldn’t even score it. President Trump’s First inaugural Address scored a dismal 36.2%.

I’m not saying that I dislike The Trumpster. I think he’s kind of funny and entertaining. If he were staring on a TV show about business I’d be a fan. He’s got some good ideas if he were to be running a big business. But it is not the business of a president to run the country as if it were his own personal business. That he is a successful business man means nothing to me as a president. The oath of office is not to the country. It is to the Constitution and it is how the Constitution says that the country is to be run that counts in this matter.

What the liberals say about him is just a big pack of lies. Most of which they themselves are guilty of. They think they have cause to be critical of him and I disagree with their reasoning on the subject. As you read my comments about him you will notice that none of what I say is personal. Almost all of my comments on him are with regards to the duties of the presidency and what the Constitution says about it.

I frequently find him saying things that are so grossly unconstitutional that I’d have thought they were quotes from Woodrow Wilson or FDR; someone of that ilk. His comments on what he wanted to do for universal healthcare in his run for the presidency in 2016 made me realize that I could never support him.

Sigh. Here’s the thing; THE MORE WE, AS CONSERVATIVES, TOLERATE AND EXCUSE A PRESIDENT WHO DOES NOT FOLLOW THE CONSTITUTION, THE MORE THE LIBERALS ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET AWAY WITH IN VIOLATING THE LIMITS THE GOVERNMENT IS SUPPOSED TO ADHERE TO. The successor inherits the power of the predecessor. Trump’s followers trust him with unconstitutional power, because, well, you know, he’s a good guy and they sound like good ideas on the surface. Biden then inherits that same power we trusted Trump with and uses it against us. Four years things go really well before it all turns to crap. What we are going through now is to that degree on Trump for passing all of the unconstitutional power he used on to Biden.

The purpose of the Constitution is to protect us from that. So while a large portion of the people who read this blog are dedicated Trump supporters, and I write this knowing full well that I’m going to offend some of them, I have to take the risk and say what is on my mind. It’s about the Constitution.

So here we are at CPAC, 2023. I could sum up eighty-five percent of his speech as a combination of three things. 1) See how great I am? 2) See how mean to me they’ve been? 3) See how stupid they are?

Don’t get me wrong. It was very entertaining. And mostly right. But in the entire thing, about two hours of talking, he only mentioned the Constitution once! And that once was how he wanted to change it!

This guy, by oath, is sworn to the Constitution’s defense. That’s what a president is really for.

The remaining fifteen percent of the speech was split between things he wants to do that are constitutional or unconstitutional. As is typical with him according to my observations they are about 50/50.

I’m only going to cover the unconstitutional things here.

So he commented about “No voter id.” That’s all fine but elections, per the Constitution, are held by the States and are really none of the federal government’s business. I’ve written about that here.

He made the statement that “We will route the fake news media.” Ummm…First Amendment? Anybody? As much as I disagree with the fake news media we can’t go down the road of regulating them. Honestly he didn’t suggest it and I have hope that he meant routing them by pointing out the truth to their discredit. That said his history for suggesting things that are grossly unconstitutional makes me wary, to say the least.

We are not going back to people that want to destroy our great Social Security system. Even some in our party, I wonder who that might be. Want to raise the minimum age of social security to 70, 75, even 80 in some cases. They are out to cut Medicare to a level that it will no longer be recognizable. Let’s be honest here. Social Security and Medicare are both Ponzi schemes created to rob money from the American People. If you were to set up a private system using the same rules you’d share a cell with the likes of Bernie Madoff. Setting that completely aside there is still the Constitutional issue. Both of these are grossly unconstitutional violations of the Tenth Amendment. I’ve written more on that here.

“A wonderful town in Ohio has difficulty, we are going to take care of that town. That city that village prior to worrying about the rest of the world.” I live in Ohio. A friend of mine from Navy boot camp is from East Palestine. I feel for those people. But this is not a federal issue. There is no authorization within the Constitution for disaster relief of any kind. It is a violation of the Tenth Amendment. There has been three times where entire cities have been wiped out in American History. The Great Chicago Fire. The Great Galveston Hurricane. The San Francisco Earth Quake. These three cities received no federal relief and somehow they still managed to exist quite well. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t help. We should. But at the forceful influence of the federal government and the thugs from the IRS? Nope. Unconstitutional.

“I smashed the false idols of the free-trade fanatics. These are for they are getting pretty rich probably the second. I left the china lobby, bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our treasury from china. Thank you very much China. When no other president got anything from them. Our trade deficits were $700 billion per year. Think of it dollars per year.” Now here is something that I have to comment on that is just plain silly. The hundreds of billions of dollars pouring into our treasury did not come from China. We the People paid those tariffs through elevated prices on imports from China. That money doesn’t come from them. It comes from us. There are a lot that great conservative economists like Milton Friedman and Walter E. Williams had to say about this. And with them I agree. If there is one thing that is distinctly conservative it is the right to free trade. This is not exactly a constitutional issue but I had to comment on it for my own sake because I believe in free trade without government interference. Trade deficits are not the evil they’re cracked up to be.

“I arrested the Marxists who toppled statues of our great heroes in Washington, D.C.. I arrested them. They were knocking down the most beautiful artwork, the most beautiful statues of great heroes. He didn't even know who they were, they just wanted anarchy and I passed and signed an executive order anyone who does that get 10 years in jail with no negotiation.” An executive order bypassing Due Process in the Fifth Amendment? Does this really seem like a good ideal for the president of the United States to do?

“And then Covid came in, and we did great job. We never got credit for that job we did a great job with Covid and gave back something very strong.” I remember a lot of press conferences with Doctor Fauci and Donald Trump. Every day press conferences for a while. All the while saying and doing all kinds of things unconstitutional for the federal government. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the federal government any emergency powers for diseases or pandemics. Nothing short of a threat to national security should involve the president on this subject.

“We have more oil in the United States than any country in the world, including Saudi Arabia. People don't realize it. In Alaska, I approved a site, we all know what the site is. Probably the biggest in the world. And the democrats said no, it's over. They turned it down. Ronald Reagan tried to do it. Every president, republican, and some democrats tried to do it. I got it done.” There is nothing in the Constitution that backs any of this up as a federal power. Granted, the federal government has its (very greedy) hands all involved with energy but it is all unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment. The States can do this but the feds shouldn’t. And yes, we have more oil under our ground than any other place in the world. We can’t get to it because the federal government has no respect for the States, the People or the Tenth Amendment.

“I will end the scourge of homelessness taking of our cities and suburbs.” Good idea for the States and the People. But the Tenth Amendment makes it none of the federal government’s business.

“Frankly, the federal government should take over control and management of Washington D.C..” Ummm… dude! It already has that control. Article One, Section Eight, Clause Seventeen. How does he not know this? This is one of those things that just boggles my mind.

“Under our leadership we will take the homeless, drug addicted and severely deranged, get them off our streets and create tent cities where we will get them the help they so desperately need.” Tenth Amendment again. The States have this authority. Not the feds.

“I will fight for parent’s rights. Can you believe here we are? And I said I'm going to fight for parent’s right? Who would thought he would say, don't you think the parents have good rights? Who would've thought you have to say it, because they took the rights away. Including universal school choice and the direct election of school and supposed by the parents. We want the school principal to be elected by parents. We love the children more than the parents. If any principal is not getting this done, the parents should be able to fire the principal and select someone new.” Do you ever wonder why the federal government and Demoncraps have so much power in the school system? Do you ever wonder why parents are losing their rights to these dirt bags? There is no authorization for the federal government to do anything about education. Nothing. It’s all a violation of the Tenth Amendment.

“We will teach our values and promote our history and traditions to our children. We well, in other words, be proud of our country again.” Same as the previous comment. Tenth Amendment. It is not up to the federal government.

“I will revoke every Biden policy regarding the chemical castration and sexual mutilation of our youth and ask congress to send me a bill prohibiting child sexual mutilation in all fifty states.” I’m going to say it. The transgender movement is insane. I mean total bat-crap-crazy-loony-tunes insane. But I can’t find any Article, Section or Clause in the Constitution for the federal government to do anything about it. The States should. The feds, per the Tenth Amendment, shouldn’t.

“And we will keep men out of women’s sports.” Again, the Tenth Amendment. My God! It’s as if he doesn’t even know it is there! I agree this should be done but everything under the sun is not a federal issue.

“By defeating Joe Biden I will save your economy I will save your retirement accounts and I will save your jobs. I have the greatest job's history of any president ever.” The reason the economy sucks under Biden is because the federal government is too involved with it. Part of this is President Trump’s cranking up the national debt by eight trillion dollars in half of the time that Obama did it. This is the quintessential idea of conservatism. The more the feds get involved with this the worse it gets. Our money and jobs are ours. It’s none of the president’s business, again per the Tenth Amendment. Granted, Trump did a good job at that part of it but his unconstitutional overreach here left us all open for Biden to come in and destroy it all.

“I will have a four-year plan to phase out all Chinese imports of essential goods and gain total independence from China.” It’s none of the federal government’s business what I buy or where it comes from. Tenth Amendment again.

“We want everything including electric cars but we also want gasoline because the cars go longer and they are preferred by many people.” Nothing in the Constitution gives the feds any power over this. Tenth Amendment yet again.

“We want oil and gasoline and natural gas because it is cheaper, better and much more powerful. It is April Fools' Day. Under my leadership we will regain energy independence that we had three years ago. We were on our way to massive energy dominance. We would have been paying off our debt, because energy is big numbers it is not like you are selling a little product you're selling the biggest product of all it is energy. We would have been paying off our debt. We would have been the strongest. We were going to be, we were already bigger under my administration than Saudi Arabia or Russia. We were going to be bigger than both of them combined and within about a year we would have made the kind of money they are making times five.” The federal government has no authority over cars or energy and they are not supposed to be making money from it or them. Donald increased our national debt by a whopping eight trillion dollars. Why is he concerned about national debt now? But I digress… Tenth Amendment on all of this…again.

“I will fight for a constitutional amendment to [propose] term limits on members of congress.” Term limits are very, very, very bad. This is the one time he even mentioned the Constitution. This is his disagreement with it and how he wants it to be changed. If an old tiger is chewing on your throat it does no good to substitute a younger tiger for the older one. The problem isn’t the age of the tiger. It’s that the tiger is chewing on your throat. Term limits are like that. But more than that they don’t limit the powers of the federal government. They limit the choices of the American People on who they have to represent them. I’ve written more on term limits here and here.

“And I will move heaven and earth to fully and finally secure our elections. All republican governors should immediately go for paper ballots one day voting and voter id.” This one is one the line for me. The elections are run by the States. That’s the way it is supposed to be and for good reason. It keeps the president and Congress from running their own reelections. If you want to know what the Constitution says about elections you can find the article I wrote about it here and decide for yourself.

“Our objective will be a quantum leap in the American standard of living especially for young people.” Tenth Amendment again.

"As I announced yesterday we will hold a competition to build new freedom cities along the frontier and to be a populous America with a new shop at home ownership in the American dream.” Not only would this be grossly unconstitutional per the Tenth Amendment—again—but would be a profoundly stupid thing to do. Cities are built by people who want to live and do business in them. You don’t just pick a spot on a map and build a city there hoping that “if you build it they will come.” If there were someplace a city needed to be built there is a 100% chance it’s already there. And why should I, as a guy from Ohio, which is not a frontier State, be forced to pay my tax money to build a city on the boarder of Arizona and Mexico?

“We will rename our schools and boulevards not after communists but after great American patriots.” As much as I would be in favor of such a thing it is not any of the federal government’s business. Tenth Amendment.

“We will get rid of bad and ugly buildings and returned to the magnificent classical style of western civilization.” Unless it is a federally owned building he’s talking about the Tenth Amendment applies here too.

“We will support baby boomers and we will support baby bonuses for a new baby boom.” So he wants to make us pay for other people to have babies too? How does this guy even call himself a conservative? This is not only a flagrant violation of the Tenth Amendment but as grossly liberal an idea as I can imagine; universal healthcare notwithstanding. Imagine this. The federal government with the power to regulate how many babies you can or cannot have. What could possibly go wrong?

“All of this is within our reach but only if we have the courage to complete the job, got the deep state and reclaim our democracy and banish the tyrants and Marxists into political exile forever.” This one is a favorite pet peeve of mine. Article Four, Section Four of the United States Constitution says; “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.” The United States is a REPUBLIC! You would think a REPUBLICAN would be able to properly identify what kind of government the United States has. To his credit he later called it a republic. Look. This is really simple. If you live in a country where the People voted directly on national issues you live in a democracy. If you have representatives who vote on your behalf on national issues, no matter how they are chosen, you live in a republic. These are not the same thing. They are mutually exclusive.

These things as constitutional violations are pretty gross. Really. For the life of me I can’t understand why anybody who is for the constitutional rule of law in this country could support him. Granted, he loves the country. I genuinely admire him for that. He has done a fair number of things that have been good for it, inside and outside of the Constitution. However I would find it very difficult to believe he loves the Constitution which he is sworn to.

That said; I still have a half rotten potato in my cupboard that would be a better president than Biden.