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.