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.

U.S. Supreme Court lets lower court ruling stand; Abortion Ultrasound Law is Unconstitutional, violates 1st Amendment.

Our "constitutional conservative" Governor Scott Walker may also have to brush up on our founding document while he's at the library studying up on foreign policy.

Walker's recent outrageous comments about those "cool" "lovely" ultrasound pictures forced on women seeking an abortion can now be viewed in context with today's U.S. Supreme Court decision that let stand a lower court ruling that the law is unconstitutional. The decision is state specific, and does not apply to Wisconsin.

But first, here's Walker's comment:

“We signed a law that requires ultrasound which, think about that, the media tried to make that sound like a crazy idea. Most people I talk to, whether they’re pro-life or not, I find people all the time who’ll get out their iPhone and show me a picture of their grand kids’ ultrasound and how excited they are, so that’s a lovely thing ... It’s just a cool thing out there.”

UNCONSTITUTIONAL!!! And so is Walker's unconstitutional attempt to restrict and regulate our 1st Amendment right to protest our government. Wisconsin's ultrasound law is similar to North Carolina's:

The Supreme Court on Monday refused to hear an appeal from North Carolina officials seeking to revive a state law that had required doctors to perform ultrasounds, display the resulting sonograms and describe the fetuses to women seeking abortions.

The order left in place an appeals court ruling that had held the law unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. “The state cannot commandeer the doctor-patient relationship to compel a physician to express its preference to the patient,” Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III wrote in December for a unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va. “This compelled speech, even though it is a regulation of the medical profession, is ideological in intent and in kind.”

Monday’s development, which set no precedent, did not affect the validity of any law aside from North Carolina’s.

In light of the legal decision described above, you might view the following Sen. Mary Lazich explanation in a completely different way. Her opening and closing comments stand out. From WPT's Here and Now:

GOP Myth Busted: Party of Law and Order? Not so much...

The fact that it's unconstitutional isn't the point I guess...

Republicans will never believe the Capitol Arrests were "unconstitutional."

The state constitution is very clear about protesting the government. We also know the state Capitol was specifically designed to accommodate public protests. Put the two together and it becomes even clearer that the arrests at the Capitol were simply meant to intimidate Wisconsinites from publically bringing attention to Walker's failures, and to protect his carefully manufactured image as a successful "leader."

And Capitol protesters continue to get their citations dismissed, all the while the DOA is cooking up new ways to boot protesters.

In fact, one judge was surprised the state flip flopped on their reasons for the arrests:

As nearly 400 citations issued to people for singing in the Capitol rotunda last summer without a permit make their way through the Dane County courts, Judge Frank Remington dismissed all such cases in his court March 10, finding the administrative rules for which they were cited unconstitutional.
“Surprisingly the assistant attorneys general argued that every person charged was unique and their circumstances could not be characterized as similar. They claimed that because the cases were unique Judge Remington should not adopt or follow Judge Markson's ruling. However, earlier they had made a contradictory claim that the singers all acted as a unified group of more than 20 people, who collectively sang songs criticizing the government inside the capital building,” explained Sparer. “The judge did not accept the State’s new argument, and ruled that the law and facts were so similar that Judge Markson's ruling had settled the matter and that the State was precluded from rearguing the points before each and every judge.

What was the cost to taxpayers for this crackdown that many conservatives still believe was justified?

None of the citations issued to people for singing in the Capitol from 2012 and 2013 has yet resulted in a successful prosecution by the Dept. Of Justice, and Judge Peter Anderson ordered the DOJ to prepare a cost benefit analysis of the hundreds of prosecutions by April 1.

But none of this ever gets the GOP in trouble.

Walker and the Republican majority are gliding into the midterms feeding off the revenues created by the nations slowly recovering economy, and not from anything they've done. That's the irony of the upcoming elections. Thanks to Obama and the short lived Democratic majority, Republicans are seeing state surpluses they're now using to make their case for reelection.

No matter what the GOP does, from their god awful racist, sexist and bigoted statements to proposals that would deregulate again, voters are apparently so intrigued by their confidence that they just might be put back in charge.  

New Legal System proposed by Walker! Allows Bad/Unconstitutional Laws to take effect anyway, even under legal challenge!

Nothing says authoritarian one party rule than the latest dictatorial power grab by Scott Walker and the Republican Majority. They don’t even have to hide their arrogant control of state government, because their voters just don't seem to care.

Will voters decide in time to stop this madness, even when it’s their own party being criticize? This could backfire the day Democrats take control again.

But the way Walker is acting, that day will not be allowed to happen again. With the bill below, I believe he’s got a point:  

jsonline: With some of their major legislative achievements thwarted by the courts in the past two years, Wisconsin Republicans are advancing a bill that would minimize the ability of circuit judges to block state laws for the long term. Under a measure announced Wednesday, such injunctions would be automatically stayed as soon as they were appealed - meaning the laws would immediately be put back in effect. Rep. David Craig (R-Big Bend), a chief sponsor of the measure, said the bill would provide stability. He noted that challenges to state laws are ultimately decided by higher courts in many instances.

Stability > Constitution. Craig admits conservative judges don’t make decisions based on the legality or constitutionality of proposed laws, but on a conservative belief system. Check it out:

"We're trying to speed up the process," Craig said. "One judge elected by one extremely small fraction of the state . . . isn't going to have ultimate say-so over law."

That one extremely small fraction, liberals in Dane County, have rural counterparts all over the state. So much so that in one poll, pictured here, Democrats outnumbered Republicans. Yet you'd never know that by the one sided rule we've seen in the legislature:

Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha) called the bill an outrageous "power grab" that would further polarize the public.

Scot Ross, executive director of the liberal group One Wisconsin Now, said in a statement the bill was abhorrent because it would allow a law to remain in effect after a judge determined it was unconstitutional. "Under their scheme, our justice system would be turned on its head to satisfy their seemingly insatiable quest for political power," his statement said. "While they flout the constitution, people's rights would be denied."

Just so you know:

In a sign the bill could move quickly, it gained support Wednesday from (the biggest asshole in the Assembly) Speaker Robin Vos. 

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/miffed-by-court-decisions-against-them-gop-lawmakers-want-to-limit-impact-of-rulings-439ghsq-202338051.html