Those Pesky Constitutional Amendments

I have always hated it when politician use the Constitution as a prop in their campaigns….most pick and choose what parts they want to use and most times they are off base completely….I am talking about both idiot parties here….their ignorance knows NO political affiliation.

Let me begin with some of the most recent moronic babblings……

First that huge tool from Texas, Ted Cruz…….

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) is proposing a new bill that would require the censorship of all public schools in the teaching of any kind of American history involving slavery.

While it appears Ted Cruz was endeavoring to ban the teaching of critical race theory, what he has inadvertently done is bar the teaching of several amendments of the Constitution.

President Abraham Lincoln’s effort to abolish slavery with the 13th Amendment would cause problems since it directly addresses the history of U.S. slavery that was abolished by the new law. Cruz’s censorship bill would effectively bar the teaching of that as well as the 14th Amendment, which made it so any person born in the United States a citizen of the United States. It also said that no person can be denied life, liberty or property. Teaching it would likely require educators to explain why that amendment came about, which would be censored by Cruz’s bill.

https://www.rawstory.com/ted-cruz-constitution-censorship-bill/

The ignorance is not limited to the GOP…however they seem to be the dumbest of the lot……

Even a politician with 50 years of legislative experience is not immune to making stupid assertions…..

This time is the president old Uncle Joe Biden……

President Biden claimed last week that the Second Amendment, “from the day it was passed,” limited what kind of weapon you could own and that “you couldn’t buy a cannon.” Biden has made this claim before, but historians and fact-checkers including Glenn Kessler at the Washington Post say it’s bunk. Historians say there are no documented instances of a private individual in the era being prohibited from owning a cannon, and Kessler notes that the Constitution granted Congress the power to allow private individuals to act as pirates—which would certainly have included owning cannons—on behalf of the US. PolitiFact deemed the claim false when Biden made it on the campaign trail, and Kessler gives Biden four Pinocchios, the highest on its scale for misleading claims.

Biden may have meant to say that the amendment “was never understood to guarantee everyone the right to own all types of weapons, which I believe is true,” says constitutional law professor Kermit Roosevelt. “As phrased, it sounds like the Second Amendment itself limited ownership, which is not true.” Kessler says the error may seem “relatively inconsequential” to some readers, but Biden is undercutting his campaign for tighter gun laws when he makes false claims.

I have been preaching for decades that the people we elect are not those that have the best interest of the country at heart…..ignorance runs deep.

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

This Filibuster Bullsh*t

Have you heard the word?

And that word is…..FILIBUSTER

The media has a new fixation…..the proposed fight over the ‘filibuster’….that super majority rule in the Senate…….

We have two back bench Dems in the Senate that are making sure that all attention is leveled on them…..Sen. Machin and Sen. Sinema……without this attention they would return to being a non-productive member of the Senate.

Sinema recently made the statement that the Founders created the filibuster to protect the minority…..first it is BS the idea of a filibuster is nowhere in the Constitution….the Founders did not foresee the rise of the political parties……

My suggestion is these political slugs should read the document that they use a political prop…..I can help……

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Then there is addendum put in the Constitution to appease the whiny states like Virginia….the Bill of Rights…..

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript

For Christ sake…read the document!

The first so-called filibuster was used in 1837 (way after the ratification of the Constitution)….the filibuster arose from a loophole…..

The loophole that permits a senator’s right to speak endlessly on the senate floor dates to Vice President Aaron Burr, who declared in 1805 that the Senate need not be burdened by too many procedural rules. Back then a process to end debate on legislation, known as the “previous question” motion, was rarely used, so upon Burr’s recommendation, the senate dropped it in 1806.

Minority party senators soon figured out that talking endlessly on the Senate floor could prolong debate indefinitely and gum up progress on a bill or nomination. The first successful filibuster was recorded in 1837, when a group of Whig senators who opposed President Andrew Jackson filibustered to prevent Jackson’s allies from expunging a resolution of censure against him.

Basically Aaron Burr, the VP at the time, is believed to be the father of the filibuster….

Under original Senate rules, cutting off debate required a motion that passed with a simple majority. But in 1806, after Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the rule was redundant, the Senate stopped using the motion.

Rarely has this technique of delay has ever ended well…..

https://www.salon.com/2021/03/14/a-short-history-of-the-filibuster-rarely-a-tool-for-good–and-never-a-tool-of-democracy/

If this country is ever to move forward then it is time for this delaying tactic to go the way of the do-do.

I these parasites cannot overturn this piece of manure…then at least be accurate and read the Constitution!

Turn The Page!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Rights As A Weapon

The First amendment….the 2nd amendment….seem to the two most cited….probably because those are the only ones that mean anything to most Americans.

It always amuses me when in-bred dumbass stump jumpers start complaining about their rights…..when it comes to their incitement rhetoric or their right to pray to a shopping cart and especially when it is their right to own a 1000 weapons designed for combat…..and now it is their right to infect others with a disease because they do not like the precautions.

Where does all this stupidity end?

Best answer is no time soon….thanx to the lies and bullshit on social media….

I read a article about a book that touches on the situation of rights used as a weapon….

Human rights are generally thought of as defensive in nature. That is, they are held up by certain individuals and groups as a means to protect their dignity from the state or other malevolent actors. Moreover, rights are often viewed as either philosophically grounded in principles of human dignity and/or religiously endowed by a creator. Even absent a philosophical or religious grounding, rights are often regarded as legal concepts and taken as inviolate. These views of human rights treat them as generally positive and used by oppressed groups for liberal ends. In Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power, Clifford Bob cuts against the hagiography of human rights, and rights in general, to focus on the fundamental political nature of rights and how they are often used strategically, aggressively, and even for “illiberal ends”.

Rights as mobilizers. As Bob notes rights are particularly potent motivators of political action. He lists five reasons for this: 1) because rights are perceived as natural in that they have deep roots, 2) rights are also perceived as universal applying across space and time, 3) rights are perceived as absolute in that they are inviolate and can trump other political issues, 4) rights are perceived as apolitical putting them above other petty political squabbles, and finally, 5) rights are violated by one’s foes.

Review – Rights as Weapons: Instruments of Conflict, Tools of Power

Thoughts?

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Civis 101–US Constitution

These days I seems to me that the American people need to get a better knowledge of our government and no better place to start the US Constitution.

I have found that there is a serious lack of knowledge on the workings of our government….many like to reference the Constitution of the United States when trying to make their point….but usually are ill informed about the document.

This series will attempt to reintroduce the reader to Civics and the working of government……I shall begin with the US Constitution…..the document that started this republic on the road we travel.

I would like to thank teachingamericanhistory.org for this post on the Constitution.

We present below the text of the Constitution as ratified in 1787. Text in blue has been superseded or altered by subsequent Amendments to the Constitution as indicated.

 
Too many people spend time using the Constitution without having the foggiest idea what the document contains.
 
If you want to use the Constitution to make your point then maybe  knowledge of the document is called for.
 
And that knowledge should include the amendments to the Constitution….the Bill of Rights…..
 
The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution. It spells out Americans’ rights in relation to their government. It guarantees civil rights and liberties to the individual—like freedom of speech, press, and religion. It sets rules for due process of law and reserves all powers not delegated to the Federal Government to the people or the States. And it specifies that “the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”
 
Be Smart!
 
Learn Stuff!
 
I Read, I Write, You Know
 
“lego ergo scribo”
 

“It Is My Right!”

I am sick of morons claiming they are losing their First Amendment rights!

That is what I am hearing from many of the Hard Right d/bags when asked about their breaching of the Capitol and committing crimes in the name of the First Amendment.

Actually they are full of crap!

What they did was seditious….that is not a right.

First Amendment….Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There is your key….” peaceably to assemble”…..the events of 06 January were NOT peaceable!

Like the torrent of video clips showing that last week’s terrorist attack on the capitol was more coordinated and more violent than its conspirators would want you to believe, the same conspirators are now pleading two narratives to cover their rear. One is that they were only exercising their First Amendment right to protest. The other is that the Black Lives Matter protests and riots didn’t draw the same scrutiny.

The right to protest is not in dispute. If that’s all the mob had done, its rights would certainly be defensible and protected, and everyone from the ACLU on down, including me, would defend that right. We’d be taking bets about how dull the Biden inaugural would be by now, not impeaching a president and witnessing one of the FBI’s most extensive manhunts in history. 

Let’s assume the protest had remained peaceful. Even then, a protest isn’t an end in itself. It’s about a message. It should be judged accordingly. The KKK or any other neo-fascist organization has the right to march downtown. But it remains a despicable organization with a reprehensible purpose. It does not have a claim to any moral ground just because it’s exercising its First Amendment right. The mob gathered in Washington last week with an equally despicable and indefensible purpose: to overturn a democratic election decided by 81 million voters, certified by 50 states, reaffirmed by 60 court decisions and the attorney general. So it wasn’t a protest, since there was nothing to protest. It was the fabrication of a coup that became an armed insurrection. Insurrections are not protected by the First Amendment.

https://www.commondreams.org/views/2021/01/16/no-open-sedition-not-first-amendment-right

Doing what Trump and his mindless supporters do manipulate the facts and the narrative will not change that these people committed sedition and that is a high crime.

DO NOT use the Constitution to try and justify what crimes they committed.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Closing Thought–29Dec20

AS this year of 2020 comes to end we find that one president will be shown the door and a new one will enter that same door and do what is that presidents do…..make the rich richer……

But as the Trump years come to an end I think back to the emoluments clause in the Constitution…..

The Constitutional Provisions……The Constitution mentions emoluments in three provisions, each sometimes referred to as the “Emoluments Clause”:

The Foreign Emoluments Clause(art. I, § 9, cl. 8):“[N]o Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

The Domestic Emoluments Clause(a.k.a.the Presidential Emoluments Clause) (art. II, § 1, cl.7): “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

The Ineligibility Clause(art. I, § 6, cl. 2): “No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been increased during such time;and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.”

I bring this up because of something I read about donors and Pres. Trump…..

President Donald Trump’s donors — the vast majority of whom are working-class supporters and retirees contributing just a few dollars a month — put $10.5 million into the erstwhile billionaire’s own personal businesses over the course of his presidency, a HuffPost analysis found.

Some $8.5 million came from the Trump campaign and related entities that Trump controls directly. Another $2 million came from other Republican candidates and committees.

Through a trust that he controls, Trump owns the hotels, golf courses and buildings that received the money, with every penny of profit flowing to him personally.

Since losing reelection to Democrat Joe Biden, Trump has continued his fundraising, with the vast majority of the money going into a virtual slush fund that Trump can legally use for just about any purpose — from McDonald’s Quarter Pounders to jet fuel for his airplane to hush money payments to women.

“If you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If you’re Donald Trump, everything looks like a chance to make money,” said Jordan Libowitz with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a watchdog group that has filed multiple lawsuits to obtain details of government spending at Trump’s businesses.

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-self-dealing-campaign-slush-fund-donations_n_5fe7b503c5b6acb534585c51

So you decide….a violation or not.

I read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Pardon–Will He, Won’t He

In the closing days of the Trump farce that was his presidency there has been a wealth of news reports and analysis by overpaid pundits to decide if Trump will pardon himself as a closing act to the sad tragedy of a presidency.

We know that the president has the power to pardon or commute but can he, Trump, really pardon himself?

Could President Trump pardon himself before he leaves office? He faces possible liability on bank and tax issues, and a former prosecutor in the Robert Mueller investigation makes the case in a New York Times op-ed that he should get hit with obstruction charges, too. A president, of course, can pardon others, but can he pardon himself? At the Atlantic, Eric L. Muller digs into the constitutional question and writes that it hinges on a single word. The Constitution, he notes, says the president “shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.” The key word there is “grant.” If the framers had used “announce” instead of “grant,” it would be clear that a president could pardon himself as well as others. But “grant” is another matter.

Muller does a deep dive and finds that whenever the word is used elsewhere in the Constitution, it is used as a transitive verb. That is, one entity grants something to another. He also digs into the word’s “original public meaning” and finds the same—it seems that whenever “grant” was used in those days, two entities were involved. What sounds picayune is “linguistically important,” he writes. “Grant” in this sense is similar to words such as “surrender” or “relinquish”—”you can’t do them to yourself.” In his view, then, Trump appears to be out of luck. The question isn’t whether Trump can pardon himself, it’s whether he can grant himself a pardon. “The evidence, at least according to the text of the Constitution and its original meaning, says no.” Read the full analysis.

If he does then it could be his crowning glory of the most absurd portion of American history…the Trump presidency.

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

I Have Lots To Say About SCOTUS

There are a few things I would like to say before the nomination and hearing process starts…..before the circus and comedy tale begins.

We are having a knockdown and dragged out fight between the parties over the choices for the Supreme Court.

I have told the readers what I think of the most recent fight involving the replacement of Judge Ginsburg….but in case are are ill informed…..https://lobotero.com/2020/09/23/dems-need-to-buck-up/

But that is not where I will stop…there is so much more I need to say….if for no other reason that to get it off my chest.

My biggest question is…..why are they appointed for life?  No one else in the scheme of things in the government has a job for life…why the justices?  They can only lose their gig through misadventure (and that is a hard thing to prove)……

Did you know that since it’s beginning the Supreme Court has had only 17 chief justices?  244 years and that is all the chief justices we have had…..and they have in the past overruled their own rulings…..like Plessey v Ferguson(1896) gave us the law of segregation…..whereas the idea of  ‘separate but equal’ facilities….Brown v Board of Education (1954) overturned it.

By stacking the court with ideologues any progress can be overturned…now you see why their political ideology is so important these….once again it is not so much about the law but rather the political agenda.

There is more……if this is truly important then maybe learning about the branch would be wise.   http://supremecourthistory.org/

Picking a judge should be about the Constitution and seeing it is upheld at every turn….not about some political ideology agenda as it is today.

No one should have a government job for life.

It is the 21st century time for the US to move out of the shadow of the 19th century and update the Constitution to reflect society of the present.

Some changes to the federal judge positions…..all judges to include SCOTUS….they should be limited to 2 5 year terms…and the chief justice is based on seniority not favor from the president…..if the branch is suppose to be independent then make it so.

Then there has been floated the idea that SCOTUS judges should be elected as in the states.  I disagree!  That opens up justice to the influence of money and power more so than today.

Qualifications should be for SCOTUS…..20 years experience as a trial judge.  For federal judges there should be at least 10 years of experience….with no political affiliations.

Justices are chosen, in descending order, first by ideology, confirmability, age, race and gender…..no where is a training in law a requirement only considered because of tradition.

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Proslavery Constitutionalism

This is where the history of the US gets a bit confusing……can you have an antislavery constitution and proslavery constitutionalism? Or how about the reverse?

Let’s look at these historic conundrum……

Historians today speak of the “proslavery Constitution” and “antislavery constitutionalism”; they almost never speak of the “antislavery Constitution” or of “proslavery constitutionalism.” This fact is a testament to the profound success of the critique of the Constitution leveled by abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison. In his condemnation of the Constitution as proslavery, his resort to Madison’s “Notes from the Constitutional Convention” to demonstrate this case, and his rejection of the Constitution’s authority—all punctuated by his dramatic burning of that document during a Fourth of July address—Garrison has set the terms within which subsequent historical debate on the relationship between the Constitution and slavery has been carried out.

Even historians who disdain Garrison’s caustic critique of the Constitution, who question his partial readings of the Convention’s debates, and who emphasize the development of constitutional arguments that culminated in the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments concede at some level Garrison’s premise that the Constitution was intended to be proslavery. Thus, it is sad, but not surprising, to see that the mob rounded up by the New York Times’s “1619 Project” is setting fire to the project of antislavery constitutionalism. Garrison’s belief that the Constitution was intended to be proslavery is an unquenchable fire that will eventually consume all it touches.

The Legend of the Proslavery Constitution

For more information on Garrison……https://www.ushistory.org/us/28a.asp

Here is a look at pro slavery in the early Republic……from the perspective of Univ. of Virginia……

According to the standard view of Southern history, there was a strong antislavery tradition in the South until the 1830’s when the militant abolitionist attacks upon not only slavery but also slaveholders forced Southerners into a defense of their peculiar institution. This view over­ looks, however, the strong proslavery tradition that also existed in the South from 1790 to 1830. This study is an attempt to re-examine this period and consider the proslavery arguments that did exist in the early United States.

Examining sources primarily from the public forum, such as speeches, newspaper articles, and pamphlets, this study focuses upon the proslavery positions presented in the early republic. It looks at not only the actual statements but also the rationale behind them. The defenses used ranged from Biblical sanction and historical precedent to “scientific” evidence, from constitutionalism and economics to social considerations and racism. In each instance, proslavery advocates justified the institution of black slavery, and the way of life based on it, as not only necessary but also beneficial for both whites and blacks.

https://libraetd.lib.virginia.edu/public_view/g445cd210

If you like reading about early American history then may I suggest this book…it is an interesting read…..https://d3p9z3cj392tgc.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/09162520/9781501726446.pdf

Further reading……

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2019/09/30/the-anti-slavery-constitution/

Slavery is a terrible point in our history and to have a complete conversation we need to have all the facts and thoughts….and the ultra-conserv Heritage Foundation tries to explain the Constitution and slavery…..

While all today recognize this momentous accomplishment, many remain confused about the status of slavery under the original Constitution. Textbooks and history books routinely dismiss the Constitution as racist and pro-slavery. The New York Times, among others, continues to casually assert that the Constitution affirmed African-Americans to be worth only three-fifths of a human being.

Ironically, many Americans who are resolutely opposed to racism unwittingly agree with Chief Justice Roger Taney’s claim in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) that the Founders’ Constitution regarded blacks as “so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.” In this view, the worst Supreme Court case decision in American history was actually correctly decided.

read more and you decide……

https://www.heritage.org/the-constitution/commentary/what-the-constitution-really-says-about-race-and-slavery

Learn Stuff!

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”

Constitution Day

Closing Thought–17Sep20

It is 17 September and the day set aside as Constitution Day……if ever there should be a federal holiday to celebrate our independence it should be 17 September….for it is when the United States stepped out of confusion and presented the republic to the nation.

Of course that is just my opinion….but since it is Constitution Day I would like to write about the document that is so cherished by us Americans.

First the day we are celebrating…..

Constitution Day is observed every year on September 17 to commemorate the signing and adoption of the constitution of the United States of America by the Founding Fathers in Philadelphia on September 17, 1787.

Constitution Day is also known as Citizenship Day, which was the name of the holiday until 2004, as its purpose was to “recognize all who, by coming of age or by naturalization, have become citizens”. Citizenship Day in turn was inspired by “I am an American Day”, created in the 1940s to celebrate citizenship. The official name of the holiday is now “Constitution Day and Citizenship Day”.

Celebrations are held on this day, and schools hold instruction sessions on the founding principles and the significance of the US constitution and the constitutional rights contained in it. When the day falls on a Saturday or Sunday, schools and other institutions observe Constitution Day on a nearby weekday.

Further reading: Constitution Day on Wikipedia

Do yourself a favor and read the document…..

https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/United_States_of_America_1992

https://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

Click to access CDOC-110hdoc50.pdf

I Read, I Write, You Know

“lego ergo scribo”