Does this mean it is unconstitutional to distrust a politician in office who is a demonstrable congenital liar?
I guess so.
Only if it's Trump though.
We can distrust Democrats all we like, but Trump or Republicans - I guess we are not permitted to distrust the person or what they say because I guess to do so is requiring them to pass a religious test.
1: I wasn't addressing you.
2: As usual you've derailed this thread to make your 'I'm Upset' speech.
This thread started out as an Opinion piece that G-d may have picked Trump himself.
Then it devolved into Trump's phony chasing of phony Evangelicals and now we're back to good old
@INVAR turning distrust into a Religious matter.
What is Your Problem with just READING the Highest Law in the land?
It couldn't Be any less susceptible of being misinterpreted.
There's a reason that Religion is a matter of Faith, and Belief.
The Constitution is only a matter of faith and belief among Godless leftists. To the rest of us, it's Not a problem to understand, or reinterpret. NO means NO.
And since I can't see inside Trump's head and heart I doubt anyone else can, whether they can find and quote Scripture or not.
NOW, since the subject is up and on the table, again, years ago I got called and insulted at TOS.
So I wrote this up.
It's my About page there.
The following are facts.
The Constitution is the highest law of the land. It is a written document and as such its meaning is not subject to change. The Founders sweated and argued out the choice of every word, phrase, paragraph, colon, semi colon, and period for just and reasonable cause.
The Founders included within the Constitution a legal method for us to step outside of its original rules. That method is Article V: the process of Amending the Constitution: which is intentionally a very difficult process assuring that it would be used only in cases of extreme, actual need.
The Founders therefore did not intend for us to play fast and loose with what they labored so hard to create, which is why they said exactly that.
Art. 6 Clause 2 provides:
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.
However, since our political class assume to know more about it than those of us who've actually Read it, a refresher course for Their edification appears in order.
The following are my opinions.
We have more than too many laws suffocating our perfect Constitution as it is. To rectify that encumbrance the next law we must pass must address those too many laws.
That next law shall require that for every new law which shall be passed the people passing it shall first repeal six existing laws. Where those six laws shall be found shall not be as important as that they shall be found, and they shall be repealed.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway.
You’re welcome to start cleaning up the mess anywhere you choose because that mess is everywhere, so long as you start actually cleaning it up.
Any law needing to be interpreted by an Administrative Law Judge in order to give that law effect, shall not become a Law until it shall have been simplified and made sufficiently specific to obviate any Administrative Law Judge involvement.
When anyone discovers that the Law means something other than what the law clearly or otherwise states (see preceding simplified and specific clause) when they get to Court, then Whomever is responsible for that misconstruction of the law’s stated intent shall be fined and or imprisioned by the State and or bamboozled party, and shall possess no immunity from prosecution for Civil compensatory damages by the bamboozled party.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway.
All Laws, Regulations and Rules enacted at any level of Government which do not conform to the clearly expressed intent and letter of our Constitution, shall henceforth be required of our existing Administrative Law Judges to either be made to conform to the clearly expressed intent and letter of our Constitution or to be declared null, void and inoperative by our existing Administrative Law Judges. Decades of ‘Through The Looking Glass’ Judicial, Legislative and Regulatory Agency activist precedent citing shall not be any defense against impeachment and or fines and or imprisionment.
Since the adverb Administrative is derived from the verb Administer meaning to manage or run something, the Constitution shall henceforth become the primary something being Administered. Secondary consequences and or perceived inconveniences to specially protected Agendas discovered in penumbrated somethings which needs must over ride the primary something shall henceforth become officially, SOL.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway, and rather than Firing our Administrative Law Judges, we will continue to pay them subject to the adjustment that they will be required to work For us instead of Against us.
Firstly among those reimposition of the Constitution consequences shall become the actualized understanding that Sec 4 of the 14th Amendment’s “validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law†clause shall be applicable only to acts of Congress which are in fact actually lawful under Article 1 Sections 7, 8, and 9 rather than the current theft of everything every Citizen owns through the Federal Reserve System’s violation of Congress discharging its mandated duty under Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 5:
“To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;â€
Art. 1 Sec 8 Clause 5 mandates the coining of money, not the imprinting of cloth, paper, or any non metallic substance with any image which has presently abandoned even its former warranting to the bearer that its face IOU promissory shall be redeemed for gold or silver (immutable equity) which value shall be subjected to the impossibility of being recalculated and devalued minute by minute by combined Congressional Profligacy and such Private Sector Transference of Public Equities and Securities considerations as have bought Congress their Unconstitutional, rebellious and insurrectionary epidemic of bank fraud and check forgings.
Failure by the Federal Reserve System to immediately cease and desist any and all of its operations shall subject any and all officers and or employees of the Federal Reserve System to prosecution under Art 1 Sec 8 Clause 6:
“To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;
Article 1 Sec 8 Clause 1 states in defining and circumscribing the powers of Congress:
“The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;â€
The ‘general Welfare’ clause exists nowhere else in the Constitution except in its introductory preamble:
The Clauses of Art 1 Sec 8 following Clause 1 therefore define the sum total of Congress legitimate powers to legislate into existence and as we’re now suffering Out of existence, the ‘general Welfare’ of the United States.
This is called a reasonable approach. We the People will meet you the Government halfway, because halting Government’s epidemic counterfeiting, bank fraud, and check forging is a more reasonable approach than trying to round up all the perpetrators, deliver them into Court, get them tried, prosecuted, convicted, and incarcerated.
As for State and Local Governments:
Article 1 Section 10 states:
“No State shall . . . pass any . . . law impairing the obligation of contracts.â€
As the Constitution is the highest law of the land it is therefore the highest legally binding Contract between We the People and those we have Contracted with to govern us.
I didn’t contract for Any of these Impairments on the Obligations of My Constitutional Contract with Governments at State or at any other subsidiary level and I doubt very much that you did either.
SO, INVAR, are you going to treat us all to another 'I'm Unhappy' lecture about our 'Foundational Principles'?
