Executive Orders=Executive Power=Dictatorship

If you have been able to keep up with Donald Trump's eradication of the U.S. Constitution, then you know how much damage he has done in the short period since he was inaugurated. Right out of the box, he halted all federal aid. Then there was an executive order targeting transgender medical care for young people under 19. The BBC also reports...

"He has signed a number of orders since taking office, aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration and reshaping the federal government. He has also issued a number of controversial pardons."

The executive order does "carry the weight of law," but can be more easily overturned. However, with T-rump controlling Congress, this likelihood would be virtually impossible. Notwithstanding, some of these executive orders have been challenged legally, but, again, Donald Trump has been known to challenge the courts, in some cases ignore their decisions. Of course, there is the new Department of Government Efficiency (Doge), headed up by the world's richest, and becoming the most hated man, Elon Musk.

The general consensus is that Musk has done just about as much damage to the country as

Donald Trump has no interest in the people

Trump, as it seems the billionaire has stuck his nose into a number of government departments. The outset is massive firings and cuts in budgets, some of which had to be reversed. The BBC said this all...

"...could lead to "a high-stakes confrontation between two branches of government that the nation’s founders designed as co-equals: the executive and the judicial."

And this was The Conversation's headline following Donald Trump's speech to Congress on Tuesday, March 4...

"Trump is the kinglike president many feared when arguing over the US Constitution in 1789 – and his address to Congress showed it"

The piece quickly skims over the litany of T-rump's claims of accomplishments, many of which are denied or listed as only partially true. BBC makes it clear that the U.S. President is not granted unlimited power in the Constitution but says...

"The extravagant claims appear to match Trump’s view of the presidency – one virtually kinglike in its unilateral power."

But as the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy, his corner on America's military clout could harken back to what he said in 2019, that he can do “whatever I want as President.” The Conversation comments...

"I think legal experts are concerned that Trump is expanding executive power beyond anything we have known in American history. And as executive power continues to expand, we may eventually hit a tipping point that threatens the structure of the government, as laid out in the Constitution."

The authors of the Constitution, along with a host of readers, "...believed that endowing the president with such powers was dangerous." And it would appear that their foresight has culminated in Donald Trump.

Ireland Does What U.S. Can't Seem to Do

Ireland has voted "resoundingly" to allow gay marriage, the first national vote on this issue in the world. They amended their Constitution to permit marriage equality and they did it with a popular mandate, stated Leo Varadkar, a gay Cabinet minister. In the county of Dublin the Irish capital looks to have voted around 70 percent in favor of gay marriage with no districts outside the capital reporting a no majority. The vote nationally was 62.1% in favor. Ireland is certainly as religious a country as is America so how do we equate that with the fact that it is religious conservatives in this country that are holding back gay marriage equality here? Constitutional scholars debate whether or not the U.S. Constitution should reflect the legal values of foreign nations. The Supreme Court looked abroad in "deciding who – such as juveniles — should be exempt from the death penalty." The big question now is whether SCOTUS will let Ireland's landmark decision affect its verdict on gay marriage in the U.S. coming soon.

The 2nd Amendment is ripe for new interpretation…again

Alan Singer is a social studies educator at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York and the editor of Social Science Docket (a joint publication of the New York and New Jersey Councils for Social Studies).  Apparently he has done his homework on the 2^nd Amendment in research for an article in the Huff Post titled, “Does the U.S. Constitution Prevent Gun Control?”  The answer to this question is a resounding “Yes” if asked of the gun nuts and their head fanatic Wayne LaPierre, CEO of the National Rifle Assn. (NRA).

Wacky Wayne says the 2^nd Amendment is sacred and an absolutist part of the Constitution that cannot be touched by gun control advocates.  Having been proven wrong on this several times already, this lunatic continues to rant and rave about gun owner rights in spite of the killings by firearms happening on a daily basis.  This sick ideology of rights over life itself is beginning to turn off a newly savvy American public.  LaPierre has used fear to make his point for years in the American Congress, NRA membership and the general population. 

 

 

President Obama has proposed new gun control regulations that range from universal background checks to banning assault rifles.  New York State passed their own law placing an immediate ban on semi-automatic rifles and pistols, shotguns, and other firearms with military-style features, requiring universal background checks prior to the sale of all guns and ammunition, making it easier for officials to confiscate firearms from the mentally ill, and increases penalties for gun-related crimes.  Singer ponders whether the law will survive.

In a conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court, they ruled that in the 2008 decision on District of Columbia v. Heller that the 2^nd Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.  The key here is “in the home” which doesn’t rule out but definitely leaves the door open to curbing the carrying of concealed weapons.  Yes, this is a separate issue but it does illustrate a potential crack in the 2^nd Amendment that proves non-absolutism. 

Wayne LaPierre has accused the President of “undermining 2^nd Amendment constitutional principles.”  Alan Singer counters with just how the apparently divine Amendment—at least to the gun nuts—could be in trouble.  He cites the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court which leans to a “textualist” interpretation of the Constitution.  Textualism is defined by Wikipedia as follows:

A formalist theory of statutory interpretation, holding that a statute's ordinary meaning should govern its interpretation, as opposed to inquiries into non-textual sources such as the intention of the legislature {or forefathers/my words} in passing the law, the problem it was intended to remedy, or substantive questions of the justice and rectitude of the law. 

Singer says, “In general I find most ‘textualist’ arguments forwarded by the Supreme Court's right-wing activists to be self-justifying contorted attempts to discover constitutional support for positions they already hold.”  An interesting observation when you consider Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, one of the most conservative, has said that stricter gun laws could be possible under the 2^nd Amendment.  This probably sent head NRA gun nut, Wayne LaPierre, gyrating into outer space but aroused the passions of all gun control advocates.

And it is here where Singer analyzes the Constitution in relation to the right of the people in connection with individual rights.  He says, “An examination of the Constitution shows a very clear and precise distinction between the term ‘people’ and ‘person’ or "persons.’"  Further, that America functions as a whole, not individually by states nor individual persons.  True, individuals do elect our lawmakers both local, statewide and nationally, but these same individuals acting separately can legally be limited. 

In the view of a textualist, “the right of the ‘people’ is a general statement of principle not a specific or individual right.”  Singer draws support from the Fourth amendment in its collective right of the people to be secure in their homes, papers, effects, etc., the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures.  However, with probable cause, identifying the place to be searched, the persons (individual), things can be searched and seized with the proper warrant.  It just proves that there is no absolutist finality in this or the 2^nd Amendment.

In conclusion, singer quotes the 2^nd: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." 

It is clearly referring to the collective “people,” in other words the country has a right to defend itself, he claims.  He does add, “there is no specific prohibition on limiting the access of individual ‘persons’ to dangerous weapons.”  Even so, this interpretation of the 2^nd Amendment “provides an opportunity for even the most conservative Supreme Court Justices to support significant new gun restrictions approved by elected officials in local, state, and federal governments.  We can only hope for the best.        

 

Arizona Republican Senate candidate Jeff Flake: The Constitution isn’t sacred

It sounds like blasphemy coming from a Republican, especially one who is solidly entrenched in the Tea Party.  All we have heard from these far-right fruitcakes in the last couple of years is just how enshrined this document was and is meant to be.  Especially when it comes to gun rights and the 2^nd amendment.  Although he hasn’t even won his primary yet, and it’s doubtful he could beat his Democratic opponent if he does, Jeff Flake is already attempting to manage his reelection.

Senate candidate Flake says he favors ending the direct election of U.S. Senators, and wants to repeal the Constitution’s 17^th Amendment.



Jeff Flake...precisely



Flake now represents Arizona in the U.S. House of Representatives from the 6^th Congressional District and is running for the Senate seat being vacated by Jon Kyl, another “flake.”  There is talk of his opponent in the primary, businessman Wil Cardon, giving up his primary fight; at the end of July Flake led Cardon by 22 points in the polls.  Assuming Flake wins the primary, he appears to be looking ahead to solidify a second term with the Arizona legislature behind him.

As a resident of the great state of Arizona, I cannot imagine putting a decision like naming a U.S. Senator in the hands of these legislative kooks.  I wish I could take credit for coining the term but Laurie Roberts, columnist for the Arizona Republic, gets the kudos for her series started recently called “DeKook the Capitol,” of course, referring to the Arizona Legislature, especially Republicans.  Over the last 3 years, this bunch, along with a completely incompetent Gov. Jan Brewer, has made the state a complete laughingstock.

Agreed, the 17^th Amendment was not given to us by the Founding Fathers like the 2^nd Amendment was; but it was passed by the Congress and on May 13, 1912 was submitted to the states for ratification and was adopted on May 31, 1913.  Tell me.  Is there a difference in the sacred value of a document created in 1787 with one conceived in 1912?  I think not.  Now if you are talking a U.S. Congress of the last few years, then, I would strongly question its ability to devise anything sensible and worthwhile.

Here’s what Jeff Flake is all about, according to the Payson, Arizona Roundup:

Flake advocated additional deep cuts in taxes and spending and the wholesale repeal of federal regulations. He said he opposed any restrictions on guns, ammunition or magazines, despite a string of recent shootings. He also said he favored eliminating both the federal Department of Energy and the Department of Education.

As is Mitt Romney, Flake is solidly behind GOP V.P. contender, Paul Ryan’s radical budget plan, covered in my Monday, August 13, post.  Democratic strategist, Donna Brazile, says that by selecting Ryan as his running mate, Romney has thrown, “…seniors under the bus and undermined their health security by ending Medicare as we know it.  It would increase health care cost for seniors, including those on fixed income, by thousands of dollars a year.”

Now I don’t want to turn this into a referendum for the repeal of the 2^nd Amendment, but if the 17^th Amendment is fair game, then so is the 2^nd Amendment.  Therefore, when an ultra-conservative like Jeff Flake, a solid Tea Party patriot, comes right out and says we should repeal part of the U.S. Constitution, it gives us gun control advocates the right to stand up and say, by the way we have something else to propose that needs the public’s attention.

Like the number of deaths per year due to firearm homicides according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC): 11,493.  That’s 3.7 per 100,000 population.  Like the fact that since I have been publishing a Monthly Shooting Report starting this past March, 432 have died from firearm homicides in 1,077 shootings.  And this only represents what is reported by the media which is very conservative. 

There can be no argument today against the fact that something has to be done about this and now.  And the 2^nd Amendment may or may not be the answer.  But the Tucson, Aurora and Wisconsin massacres do rigidly point toward stronger firearms regulation.  Jeff Flake has opened a can of worms in the sanctity of a Constitution that many have claimed cannot and must not be tampered with.  The question is whether this is more important than American lives.