President Barack Obama thinks there are 57 states in the United States. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump thinks there are 12 Articles in the Constitution.
On Thursday, The Hill reported:
During a lunch hosted by the Heritage Foundation, Rep. Mark Sanford (R-S.C.) recalled the presumptive GOP presidential nominee’s response to a lawmaker’s question about how he’d protect the powers of Congress as outlined in Article I of the Constitution.
Trump responded that he wanted to protect Article I, Article II — all the way through Article XII. The problem: There are only seven articles of the Constitution.
“We both know there is no Article XII,” Sanford said, adding he “wasn’t particularly impressed” with Trump.
Still, Republicans appeared to give Trump a pass for his error.
The story reminded me of how President Obama caught flack for slipping up and claiming he’d visited 57 states back in 2008.
Sure, it was just a gaffe. But in hindsight, maybe one a little less due to Obama’s exhaustion than his actually not giving a damn how many states there are. His two-terms have, after all, been dedicated to increasing federal power by marginalizing the role of Congress and increasing the reach of bureaucratic cabinet agencies.
Could Trump’s lack of basic constitutional knowledge have a similar basis?
Based on his remarks, I think so.
He’s not a yuge fan of individual property rights.
“Eminent domain, when it comes to jobs, roads, the public good, I think it’s a wonderful thing, I’ll be honest with you. And remember, you’re not taking property…. I don’t think it was explained to most conservatives,” he has said of the merits of a Supreme Court opinion that government could force the sale of private property.
The 5th Amendment acknowledges government’s ability to take private property, with just compensation, when it clearly benefits the public good. But Trump champions a reading of the Constitution which extends the ability of evaluating the public good of a project to private developers who may have an eye on your land.
And free speech? Well, Trump doesn’t exactly think it’s terrific.
He’s championed new internet controls to tamp down on online speech in an effort to combat the the spread of radicalism.
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” he said last year.
Trump continued: “We have to see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening.
“We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some ways. Somebody will say, ‘Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people.”
And while we’re on the 1st Amendment, what of Trump’s stance on press freedom? It’s pretty straightforward: Reporters are losers and they should be easier to sue.
“Believe me, if I become president, oh, do they have problems,” Trump has said of the media. “They’re going to have such problems.”
To be fair, Trump has had a fraught relationship with the media over the years. But it’s still a little alarming to hear a guy running for president speak so badly of media, especially considering that the founders thought it necessary to specifically protect press freedom. Perhaps even more important to remember, is that we’ve spent the last eight years watching a White House treat reporters and whistleblowers like enemies of the state.
Trump said: “I’m going to open up our libel laws so when they write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. … So that when The New York Times writes a hit piece, which is a total disgrace — or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons — write a hit piece, we can sue them and win money instead of having no chance of winning because they’re totally protected.”
Just like with the eminent domain thing, there’s a big question hanging out there: Who gets to decide what’s fair and what’s true in Trump’s America?
If a mega-corporation wants your land and their team of lawyers can prove to a government judge it serves the public good to force you to sell, it would seem that would be up to the cronies. Ditto if a small time blogger or local paper blows the top off of a story of government corruption or corporate abuse which creates peril for power only to be sued to smithereens for forgetting a comma somewhere.
We should also remember that despite the National Rifle Association’s decision to endorse Trump, he’s not always been a “shall not infringe” kind of guy when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
“I support the ban on assault weapons and I support slightly longer waiting periods to purchase a gun,” he wrote in his 2000 book The America We Deserve.
By the way, Article I of the Constitution, the one Trump was asked how he’d protect, is where Congress gets the power to legislate on behalf of the people they represent. It talks about the very power that the previous several presidential administrations have worked so hard to eviscerate. Republicans looking for small government and a return to constitutional balance of power really shouldn’t “give him a pass” for lack of a clear answer.
The post Trump is no constitutional scholar appeared first on Personal Liberty®.
from PropagandaGuard https://propagandaguard.wordpress.com/2016/07/08/trump-is-no-constitutional-scholar/
from WordPress https://toddmsiebert.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/trump-is-no-constitutional-scholar/
No comments:
Post a Comment