Constitution
One of the 4 or 5 greatest documents in the history of civilization, the US Constitution, created and has served for 225 years to strengthen to basic freedoms on which the United Sates of America was founded. George Washington, who presided over the Constitutional Convention, put the importance of the document and its principles this way: "Toward the preservation of your government and the permanency of your present happy state, it is requisite, not only that you steadily discountenance irregular oppositions to its acknowledged authority, but also that you resist with care the spirit of innovation upon its principles, however specious the pretexts. One method of assault may be to effect in the forms of the Constitution alterations which will impair the energy of the system, and thus to undermine what cannot be directly overthrown." To continually water down through constant "innovations"...isn't that what we are dealing with now? The Marxist left constantly sings the about the need to make the Constitution a "living document" and is irrelevant in its current form because it is out of date. Washington told us to be on guard for such tactics over two hundred years ago. It will serve us well right now to heed his warnings.For an issue by issue discussion of the Constitution, see the EPOCH Times , Defending the Constitution. It discusses the fallacy of a living constitution, the brilliance of the second amendment, racism, sexism, understanding the Constitution, and much more. An educational read, full of fact & truth, not politics and political correctness.
Archive Related Items

Constitution vs Politics

7/2/24
from The Gray Area:
7/1/24:

Today's Supreme Court ruling on 'Presidential immunity' explains in precise detail what immunity any President can expect for his actions in office. For example, ThE Walls Street Journal Editorial Board repeats a relevant detail from Chief Justice John Roberts' opinion: “A President inclined to take one course of action based on the public interest may instead opt for another, apprehensive that criminal penalties may befall him upon his departure from office,” writes the Chief for the six conservative Justices. “And if a former President’s official acts are routinely subjected to scrutiny in criminal prosecutions, ‘the independence of the Executive Branch’ may be significantly undermined.” This is a well thought out opinion, with focus on the Constitution, the history of the question, and not politics. But, Democrat political brilliance knows an opportunity when they see one. This is a political opportunity to revive Joe Biden and explode their political attacks on the Supreme Court. Read the 'dissents' to this opinion and they are transparently political. Start with President Biden's public address to the country in 'dissent' against this decision. You only see these things when politics take the lead over respect for the Constitution. Nothing he said was outside of a political, and, in his case, it was a campaign speech, using teleprompter, designed as a comeback from his disastrous debate performance. He quoted Roe V Wade, voting rights, civil rights and January 6th. And, then makes general projections about what a second Donald Trump presidency would unleash. Nothing he said was true. But, everything he said was political. This was a distasteful use of the 'bully pulpit'. He misinformed the public about this ruling. And, by issuing his 'rally for all Americans to "dissent"', he sets up presidential approval for protest, riot, revolt, revolution, and even a coup. Beware after the election..... Justice Sotomayer's dissent was full of political narratives and even false examples. "if the occupant of that office misuses official power for personal gain, the criminal law that the rest of us must abide, will not provide a backstop. with fear for our democracy, I dissent." Democrat narratives: - no one is above the law - save our democracy - decisions for 'personal gain' Sad to see this from a constitutional Justice who is supposed to be above politics. Is it the 6 Justices who voted 'yes' on this case that were political, or the 3 who voted 'no'? If you are on the left, its the 6 who voted 'yes' on immunity. If you are on the right, it is the 3 who voted 'no'. In recent history, the trend is for left-wing Justices to vote as a block with the political winds of the Democrat Party. Historically, and also within this Court, the conservative justices vote their view of the Constitution, to the dismay of many conservatives See today's Court ruling on social media first amendments rights). That simple fact, respect for and reverence to the Constitution, is NOT something the Democrat left is in support of. They value political ideological reference, not constitutional. Also, Biden referenced our Founding Fathers, specifically George Washington, saying that he would be appalled by this decision. This reference is laughable as the Progressive, Democrat left consider the Founding Fathers, and George Washington, as 'slave owning racists' and 'illegitimate' as fair references for anything - - - other than racism. The only thing controversial about this Supreme Court decision was that it potential guts the political show trials the left is banking on to eliminate Donald Trump as a candidate for President. So, the Democrats need a new 'boogeyman'. The Supreme Court, which they have attacked relentlessly anyway, has now moved into a tie with Trump for that role. AOC announced she plans to introduce a bill of impeachment when Congress returns. There is no way this will pass either house of Congress. It is simply more political posturing.

More From Daily Signal:



365 Days Page
Archive Related Items
Comment ( 0 )