Trump: Violating the Constitution on Day One with thunderous applause!

Trump's conflicts of interest are unquestionably unconstitutional. For a party that whined incessantly about emperor Obama and his unconstitutional grab for power, it's hard to comprehend the magnitude of the hypocrisy here.   

For all those fire-breathing Republican pocket constitutionalists, ah, wake up, or do the ends justify the means? On second thought, after watching a few of the Trumpian "we won" events, it's silly to even ask that question. Loved this short clip:



While the mainstream media's lack of concern over an unconstitutional Trump presidency is shocking, we here in the blogosphere won't stop screaming bloody murder.

The Brookings Institution's detailed Governance Study lays it all out here (click link). Here's what they concluded:

Conclusion: The Emoluments Clause, until recently not much discussed because its constraints have been taken for granted, constitutes a clear barrier to the intermingling of business and governmental interests that Donald J. Trump proposes to build into his conduct of the Presidency. That is a conclusion without partisan or ideological inflection; it would apply with equal force to any person or party occupying this position of public trust. It is plain that a President Trump would be subject to removal from office for the intentional abuse of power that this manifestly unconstitutional intermingling of private and public concerns would entail. 

When this guillotine might fall is a matter of political more than legal calculation, and is thus beyond the scope of our analysis. Likewise, just how the ongoing prospect of such an ignominious end to a Trump presidency would embolden his political adversaries at home and abroad, and undermine his legitimacy in the eyes of the American public and global community, is impossible to predict. So too, we cannot anticipate how the omnipresent prospect of such a disgraceful end would distort the dynamics of a President Trump’s ability to serve the domestic and national security interests of the nation. 

But that this looming constitutional shadow over his time in office would grievously disserve the people of the United States is beyond doubt.

Hillary wants to revise the First Amendment? Outrageous!

Throwing political opponents like Hillary Clinton in jail sounds so...banana Republican, doesn't it?

Sadly, they mean to do just that, and see nothing disturbing about it. Donald Trump Jr. received media praise for a powerful speech that perpetuated a list of absolute nonsense and lies that were disproved by his own party's congressional investigations, and no one cared.

The next logical step for Republicans?

Republicans have been "framing" the issues in same way the tabloids have doing for years, with sensationalized eye candy like...

The Wall Street Journal has mastered the art of propagandist headlines that are meant to alarm its readers, like the one below:

Clinton to Madison: Get Me Rewrite

She tells Sanders voters that she’ll revise the First Amendment.

How dare she. The article is actually about Hillary Clinton's promise to take money out of politics, by proposing an Amendment to the Constitution that would overturn Citizens United. 

Voters won't like that...right? It's obvious who the WSJ is trying to reach with this one, but it sure isn't the American public, as you can see by the results from the conservative pollster Rasmussen Reports: 

Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey (July ’15) found that 59% of voters think most members of Congress are willing to sell their vote for either cash or a campaign contribution, and 56% think it’s likely their own representative has already done so. That includes 26% who think it’s Very Likely their representative has sold his or her vote. 

76% of Likely U.S. Voters (Feb. '16) believe the wealthiest individuals and companies have too much influence over elections,

80% agree that wealthy special interest groups have too much power and influence over elections. 

So as horrible as "revising the First Amendment" sounds, Americans are with Hillary and Bernie. 

Sure both party's take lots of money to fund their campaigns, but only one wants to take that same money out, and it sure ain't the Republicans. Even more surreal, their down and out small town middle American voters want to oddly, elect a millionaire. You can't make this stuff up.

What we're not seeing is the WSJ opposing a proposed revision in the new Republican platform:

“We do not accept the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states,” the platform reads.

That's a good revision.

I'm surprised Trump missed this one. After all, it could be true:

Bradley's "Originalist" Constitution does not protect or promote "a more equal society!!!"

I never thought Rebecca Bradley would be partisan enough to highlight, and go after, JoAnne Kloppenburg for her promise to promote a more equal society. I was wrong.

The Constitution doesn't promote a more Equal Society? Apparently "originalists" have decided all rights have already been doled out, end of story. Forget any new challenges and efforts to discriminate.

Bradley's "originalist" Constitution believes "a more equal society" is a return to the days when the middle class fought back and threatened the status quo. She made that clear in the editorials she wrote at Marquette University. In a recent partisan rant, Bradley proved once again she hasn't moved an inch from her bigoted, partisan, condescending comments of the past:

In a March 21, 2016 interview on Wisconsin Public Radio’s "Joy Cardin Show," Bradley said:

"Given her judicial philosophy, JoAnne Kloppenburg has told us she thinks it's her job to promote a more equal society. She will most definitely introduce her social and political beliefs into her decision making."

But as PolitiFact pointed out, it wasn't Kloppenburg's idea so much as something the courts have emphasized over centuries:

"...my decisions are based on the law and the facts, not on ideology or partisan politics. I am faithful to the court’s role as an independent check and balance on the other political branches of government. My duty is to uphold the Constitution, a sacred document that represents the will of the people and which contains the fundamental principles that define our democracy, protect individual rights and promote a more equal society."
Kloppenburg’s statement is more broad than Bradley suggests.

If Bradley doesn't like the idea of "a more equal society," or thinks it's partisan to expect that from our courts, then by all means let's make sure voters know what she won't do...

"...JoAnne Kloppenburg has told us she thinks it's her job to promote a more equal society." 

Amazing. But there's a reason Bradley doesn't agree with a more equal society; because it's part of a "living breathing" reading of the Constitution, the opposite of her originalist philosophy.

At the beginning of the 19th century, Chief Justice John Marshall had lectured the American people to always remember that the Constitution is intended "to be adopted to the various crises of human affairs." This notion of a "living constitution" is not accepted by all scholars or judges, but the history of the Equal Protection Clause in the last half-century would indicate that its applications, and possibly its meaning as well, have changed over time.

Walker's race tainted cheap shot at untrustworthy President, on Syrian Refugees, still doesn't justify unconstitutional act against Syrian Refugees.

No surprise, Scott Walker has joined the Republican pack of liars using a not so subtle racial attack on President Obama. First, blame him for Paris? He really did:

Walker's recent comments are also dripping with authoritarian assurances of keeping us safe, using words like "certain" and "guarantee," suggesting that only his party provides such protections:

"Our concern is for safety, and we cannot...we don't currently feel certain that this federal administration is doing all that it needs to be done to guarantee that uh, none of these related individuals related to ISIS or other affiliated groups..." 

Walker rationalizes that by breaking federal immigration law, he can actually "guarantee" our safety. Sure, of course our brave leader can. Think we'll ever hear Walker and other Republicans use that excuse over and over again to get strip the Constitution of any meaning? Welcome to authoritarian rule: WISC:

WSJ: Gov. Scott Walker defended his plan to not welcome Syrian refugees into Wisconsin, saying the Obama administration’s handling of the Paris terrorist attacks shows it can’t be trusted to ensure the refugees are not a threat on U.S. soil.

Walker blasted President Barack Obama’s administration for what he characterized as an intelligence failure in the lead-up to the Paris attacks earlier this month, which left 130 dead.

“The president himself said ISIS was contained and hours later, there was an attack on Paris. How did they not know about that? What kind of intelligence do we have that doesn’t allow the president of the United States to know that there’s a threat on a major global city like Paris?"

Walker Unconstitutional and Lawless: Maybe as a felon, Walker will be bumped from office:

The ACLU of Indiana has sued that state’s governor, Republican Mike Pence, for taking similar action ... similar lawsuits to be filed against some of those states. In a lawsuit filed in federal court on behalf of Exodus Refugee Immigration, the ACLU claimed that Pence’s decision to bar Syrian refugees violated the Constitution, the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the federal government’s exclusive authority over immigration. Judy Rabinovitz, deputy legal director of the ACLU’s immigrants’ rights project said in a news release, “He does not have the power to pick and choose between which lawfully admitted refugees he is willing to accept. Singling out Syrian refugees for exclusion from Indiana is not only ethically wrong, it is unconstitutional. Period.”

Obama lashed out saying he “cannot think of a more potent recruitment tool for ISIL than some of the rhetoric that’s been coming out of here during the course of this debate.”

God puts Walker in charge, to rewrite the Constitution and leave states to decide who's created more equal than others.

We’re all created equal, right? So the argument surrounding the legality of same sex marriage should be focused on equality, and not a historical or religious based idea that is forever changing, right?

None of this seems to matter in the media, even to some attorney pundits, who keep talking about how the constitution protects or doesn't protect gay marriage. Equality under the law trumps all of it. Even vacuous Republicans like Paul Ryan, who want to bypass the constitution by saying our God given rights come first, can’t argue that even God made us all equal.

So when Republicans like Scott Walker want to carve out an exception to those God given rights, and turn them over to the states to politically micromanage for our creator, why isn't anyone asking him how that’s Biblically possible?

The Republicans blatant politicization and manipulation of the Christian religion was front and center as GOP candidates gathered in front of 1,000 people at the evangelical Point of Grace Church. Come on, really? I’m assuming the church is not taking advantage of the standard tax exemption most houses of worship take? Cap Times:

Walker told reporters he's holding out hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will rule that states can bar same-sex marriages. But if that's not the case, he suggested that voters should seek a constitutional amendment to allow state-level bans.

Remember, it’s not the definition of marriage, it an issue of equality:

"I think the appropriate route is … to pursue a constitutional amendment allowing the states to determine what the definition is," Walker told reporters.

Walker knows it’s not about jobs, a lesson he learned after Wisconsin voters gave him a pass on his disastrous jobs creation record, a failed promise his voters just laughed at as though it were an inside joke.

But the crowd wasn't gathered at the church to talk about the economy. Most attendees said they were most concerned with where candidates stood on social issues and national security. Troy McGill, of Ankeny, said he'd like to see a governor run for president, but more than that, he wants a candidate who will say what he or she means and stick to it.

Conservatives love authoritarian leaders willing to go against the public and “stick to it,” doing the “right thing:”

Walker said, "The best way to minister is to accept God's calling when you least expect it," Walker said. "We felt it was a calling to get in that election. We felt we were called to do the right thing..."