President Reagan's First Address to Congress: Constitutional Score, 74.1%

I occasionally take a lot of critical fire for being so hard on President Trump for his seemingly unconcerned stance regarding his following of the Constitution. To date I’ve rated and published three expressions of his policies and positions according to my current understanding of the Constitution; Trump's First Address to Congress, Trump's First Inaugural Address and Trump's First Hundred Days Plans. None of these rated particularly high; 52.6%, 36.2% and 51.5% respectively. The method of scoring is included in the links above.

Please understand that these efforts are not for the purpose of attacking the president. This is not a personal thing against him. I simply regard it as my duty as an American citizen, sworn to the support and defense of the Constitution, to know when our political leaders are feeding us lines intended to subvert it.

In the interest of fair comparison and logical evaluation it becomes necessary to compare these numbers with the numbers of other presidents in similar circumstances. The only president which I’d ever done something similar was Abraham Lincoln, and even that wasn’t a rated evaluation.

So in the interest of providing comparisons I decided to do several other president’s speeches, starting with Ronald Reagan’s First Address to Congress on the 18^th of February, 1981. I also intend to do at least one of President Obama’s just to get the radical left wing comparison.

Trump's First Address to Congress: Constitutional Score, 52.6%

Sigh. This is the kind of article no author ever wants to write. With that said, I am a man who is committed by oath to the defense of the Constitution, thus there is no escaping it.

Let me say at the outset of this review of President’s Trump’s address to Congress that I’m am not necessarily a Trump supporter. Neither am I particularly against him. In fact, I’m quite happy and relieved that he won over Clinton. President Trump is neither conservative—meaning small government—nor concerned with the Constitution in spite of his recent oath to uphold it. Where he does score high with me is that he tends to make liberal’s heads explode. Anybody who can make Chuck Schumer cry is deserving of some credit.

While I could never vote for him I am not a Never Trumper because such people, mostly establishment RINOs, would hate him even for the things he can do right. I am not a Democrat; they would hate him—in spite of the fact that I think President Trump most properly would be a Democrat—for the unforgivable sin of putting an “R” next to his name and beating Hillary. I am a Constitutional Conservative which means ONLY two things; small government, under the Constitution. If you have to categorize me in hash tag terms I am most properly defined as #AlwaysConstitution. In this I guess you could call me an extremist; so be it. I once volunteered my life in oath to its defense so I might as well defend it.

President Trump's First Inaugural Address: 36.2% Constitutional

Well I've taken my post election break from all things political and now it's high time that I write an IWFTCP review of President Trump's First Inaugural Address.

I have done this kind of thing before on this blog and the rules for my scoring are explained here. But just for the sake of this article, red is constitutional, blue is unconstitutional. Also, as I have explained in other posts, I have no personal like or dislike for Donald Trump or any other politician. My sole interest is in almost all political conversation is the Constitution of the United States, which I have sworn with my life to defend. Try as I might it is my sincere effort to not make personal comments for or against the politician in question. Regarding President Trump, I think he is a better choice than Obama was or Clinton would have been, but that does not give him points for understanding or following the Constitution. He's a businessman, and thus understands money, which is something we need in this unit of time. However, long-term, with regards to the rights of the American People and the responsibilities of the presidency under the Constitution, well, you'll see...

At the outset I'm going to give the score as only 36.2% of the things he said having anything to do with the constitutional power of the federal government; assuming I counted correctly.

And don't get me wrong here; there are a lot of things in this that I've colored blue, as unconstitutional, which would be good for the American People, particularly businessmen, to do. It's often not the thought that these things shouldn't be done. It's just that they shouldn't be done by the president of the United States or the federal government.

So here it is. President Trump's First Inaugural Address...

Trump's First Hundred Day Plans: IWFTCP Constitutional Score, 51.5%

In my last article, How to Destroy the Two Party System: IWFTCP Principles, I mentioned a method of highlighting the text of a political speech or article to point out the parts that do or don't follow the Constitution. This is an example of the method I have been working on for a while; although I haven't published any of them except this one yet. There may be a lot more of these in the future because it seems like it might be a good way to make my point.

If you are sympathetic to the IWFTCP and its goals, and you want to score a couple of speeches or statements of politicians to see how they rate, go ahead! If you do one that seems particularly enlightening and of high public interest, contact me, and if it seems consistent I'll publish your work here with full credit to you.

The idea here is that the red text is where the use of government powers are mentioned or assumed that objectively follow the Constitution according to my current understanding. It is important to understand that, per the Tenth Amendment, in order for a mentioned power to be colored red, that power has to be specifically mentioned within the Constitution. Blue texts are mentions of the use of federal power that have nothing to do with anything named within the constitution.

The Tenth Amendment [10A] comes up a lot. Sometimes red, sometimes blue. Where it is red it indicates a power being given up that has nothing to do any power the feds are supposed to have. Where it is blue is a mention of federal power that should be left to the States and/or the People being taken by the federal government in spite of the Tenth Amendment.

Lincoln's First Inaugural Address: A Masterpiece of Political Shysterism

First to set the table a bit. My commentary will be red. Sometimes I write as if I'm talking directly to Lincoln. Sometimes not. I've tried to limit out of my comments things that happen after the point in time where he gave this speech. So issues like Fort Sumter, for example, don't get mentioned. I'm trying to view it as I would have viewed it then, as if it were just happening. The general purpose behind this analysis is that I'm writing a book which deals with political issues and politicians who are masters of spin. This one seems to me to be a prime example. History has recorded well enough what he actually did. Please keep in mind that these are only my notes and are not intended to be a formally written commentary.

People who know me and have read other posts of mine about Lincoln know that I really don't like him. I have a uniform standard for rating presidents based on if the follow the Constitution or not. Based on that, and taking all excuses off the table, I think he's the worst president we've ever had and the country is still suffering from what he did.

While this will not be viewed by most as being directly related to current issues it is a fine example of the deceptive techniques still used in modern times. Obama could have given this speech.

As of 1860, two thirds of the federal revenue came from taxes taken from the South through protectionist tariffs, which benefited the North's internal improvements programs, while doing little for the South. Other resources back this opinion and I leave it to the honest researcher to do his own homework. I'd advise the reader to seek the opinions of economists on this point rather than historians. Lincoln, by his own frequently expressed testimony and history, was for high protectionist tariffs and internal improvements (modernly known as corporate welfare) programs. He made his own personal fortune through being the legal representation for big railroad companies who benefited from such policies. While the term "lobbyist" hadn't been coined yet, for all intents and purposes that's what he was for the railroad companies of the day.

A magician, same as a crafty politician, has a principle of operation he uses in creating his magic. While continuously drawing the audience's attention to his right hand he works behind the scenes to create his illusions with his left hand which he very carefully doesn't call your attention to. This tactic is also use quite frequently in politics. In this address Lincoln mentioned slavery 16 times in various forms and discussed it at some length. Taxes (as duties and imposts) were only mentioned briefly once. State's Rights (modernly called Social Issues) were mentioned twice. It becomes obvious, given the principle that the best policy is to attack where the enemy is weak, where Lincoln wanted the public's attention to be as well as where he didn't want it to be. I'll call this the "look over here" principle.

It is also a well known propaganda tactic that if you tell a lie surrounded by truths, that through twisted logic related to the truths, the lie will be accepted as if it were true. Then by repeating that lie over and over again it tends to be viewed as if it were the truth of its own accord. Then by framing other lies surrounded by the first as if it were true, other lies can be accepted based on the first. Gradually an entire framework can be built and believed, based on lies. The public, not being aware of the lies as such, acts on them as if true. This method of political discourse is as old as time.

With the above points explained and assumed we then proceed to Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.

Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."