One Man's Opinion
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16

One Man's Opinion

My motivation for beginning this blog is to express thoughts regarding pertinent subjects to me and hopefully others.  I found that expressing myself on social media caused too much name calling, too much anxiety, too much anger.  As we all know, it is very easy to subject someone to a level of stress hiding behind social media.  It would appear, everyone has an opinion, which they are entitled to, but few, if any, have serious thoughts regarding their statements.  

Call it inductive reasoning or deductive reasoning…or maybe just common sense, but at one point in time everyone must exhibit it, for the good of the person, for the solving of a problem, or, for expressing an opinion that is not full of holes like Swiss cheese.  It is one thing to have an opinion based on fact; it is another to be a parrot of words.
 
The bottom line is if you choose to read what I have written, good for you.  You may not like what I have written and that is okay, just don’t utilize this blog to bash anyone with a barrage of unsavory comments.  That is unacceptable.  If you choose to differ, please have a well thought out response.  Everyone is entitled to an opinion.​

Where has the Rule of Law gone?

7/16/2025

2 Comments

 
I’m not a Rosie O’Donnell fan.  Not at all.  I don’t like her act whatsoever.  But there is something about Rosie I do like, and that is she sometimes is not afraid to express her thoughts or her doings.  Rosie has moved to Ireland.  The reason seems to be her disdain for the President.

It was reported, after O’Donnell’s move to Ireland in January, Trump threatened to “revoke” her citizenship in the United States.  He stated so on this Social Truth platform.  Since the breakup of the bromance between Elon Musk and the President, the President has said he would consider “revoking” Musk’s citizenship.

This isn’t akin to a judge suspending a driver’s license because of a person operating a motor vehicle under the influence. It is creating a situation much like a short story by Edward Everett Hale, first published in 1863, “A Man Without a Country”, with one small exception.  It was O’Donnell’s choice to move to Ireland, regardless the reason.

The President wrote "Because of the fact that Rosie O'Donnell is not in the best interests of our Great Country, I am giving serious consideration to taking away her citizenship." 

“She is a Threat to Humanity, and should remain in the wonderful Country of Ireland, if they want her. God Bless America!"

Rosie O’Donnell a threat to humanity?  Nuclear weapons are a threat to humanity; the black plaque was a threat to humanity; the Spanish Flu epidemic that occurred in 1918-1919 was a threat to humanity…but Rosie O’Donnell?  C’mon man!

I researched the possibility of Trump going through with his threat.  I’m not sure the President has done so. Rosie’s father was from Donegal, Ireland; her mother Irish-American born in the United States.  Rosie was born in the United States.  She has citizenship being born in the United States to an American citizen.  On what grounds would the President revoke O’Donnell’s citizenship?  Because she moved to another country and spoke badly about him?

This threat by the President goes along with his idea of dismissing “birthright citizenship”.  Imagine if the President were to pursue this and be successful, everyone in the United States could have our citizenship revoked because of … speaking our mind and criticizing the President … uhhh, that is a First Amendment Right.

It is well known, the President, in an interview with Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” indicated he didn’t have to worry about what he could or couldn’t do as President in regards to the Constitution.  When Welker pressed the President on upholding the Constitution, Trump’s reply was, “I don’t know.  I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”  But please notice, the President didn’t say he would uphold the Constitution.

So, what does this indicate?  It is apparent President Trump would like to negate the 1st Clause of the 14thAmendment to do away with “birthright citizenship”.  But please understand, that is the same clause that gives ALL citizens 1st class citizenship to include the Bill of Rights.  It is the same Amendment that gave us SCOTUS decisions of Topeka v. Brown, Bakke v. UC Davis Regents, and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, which, surprisingly, affirmed the principle of birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to non-citizen parents.

If the President were to be successful in negating the 14th Amendment, could he pick and choose what he wishes to negate in the Constitution?  In a recent ruling by SCOTUS, the Court said anything the President does in an official capacity as President of the United States is legal.

And that brings me to the real nuts and bolts of this article:  The Rule of Law.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has recently spoken out about the erosion of “the Rule of Law” in the United States.  Chief Justice John Roberts has consistently expressed concerns about the state of the rule of law in the United States, pointing to several areas of concern:
  • Eroding Public Trust and Disregard for Court Decisions: Roberts has warned against public officials, regardless of political affiliation, who suggest open disregard for federal court rulings.  A Gallup poll found American's confidence in the country's judicial system dropped to a record low of 35%.
  • Attacks on Judges and Judicial Independence:  He's cautioned against "ad hominem" attacks on judges and stressed that criticism should be directed at the decisions themselves, not at the judges personally. 
  • Importance of Civic Education: In a recent address to Georgetown Law graduates, Roberts highlighted the importance of civic education, stating that a lack of understanding about the courts and the different branches of government among young people poses a significant threat to the rule of law. He emphasized that strengthening the rule of law requires a better understanding of how the U.S. system of justice works.
  • Overturning Precedent and Legal Stability:  He believes that overruling precedent solely because a different group of justices holds a differing opinion is not a sufficient reason and could lead to legal instability.
In essence, Chief Justice Roberts' concerns about the rule of law center on maintaining the independence and legitimacy of the judiciary, protecting judges from intimidation and threats, and ensuring the public's understanding and trust in the U.S. system of justice.
 
How does this apply to the Executive Branch, namely the President?

A New York Times columnist, Charlie Savage, wrote, “In the radical opening weeks of his second term, President Trump has appeared to feel little constraint by any need to show respect for the rule of law."

What must be remembered, and should have been learned in government class in school is:


  • The Legislative Branch (Congress) makes laws
  • The Executive Branch (the President) enforces law
  • The Judiciary (the court system) interprets law

Please keep in mind, the Constitution set up a system of checks and balances to prevent one branch of government from becoming too powerful.  This was to prevent one central figure from garnering authoritarian or autocratic power.

President Trump began the first weeks of his second term with a flurry of executive actions and orders that pushed beyond the limits of executive authority. As of this writing, since Trump took office some 6 months ago, President Trump has signed 166 Executive Orders …which have the same force as law.  In his eight years as President, Ronald Reagan signed a total of 381 Executive Orders.
​  
Is Trump overstepping his authority?  Is the Executive branch becoming all too powerful, and if so…why?

Let me suggest this:  The President is one who is promoting “Ad hominem” attacks. This simply means, in an argument or debate, one doesn’t defend their argument or position.  One attacks the person.  The buzz word for this behavior is “bully”.
  
This is exactly what behavior Trump has demonstrated.  If one is not loyal to Trump, if one questions his ideas or proposed policies, Trump attacks the person and doesn’t defend his argument.  He has verbally attacked judges that didn’t deliver an opinion in his favor.  Trump has attacked the work of the January 6thCommittee…personally using a verbal attack on Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger, both Republicans.  Cheney lost her primary election to a Trump backed candidate.  Kinzinger chose not to run for re-election. Trump continually blames his shortcomings on President Biden, often calling him “the worst President in the history of the United States.”
  
Is it this behavior that prevents the Republicans in Congress from speaking out against Trump, from performing their job of oversight?  Senator Thom Tillis, a Republican from North Carolina spoke out and voted against the Big Beautiful Bill Act for which he was rudely chastised by the President, who even indicated Tillis would not have his support in his upcoming election.  Tillis, a well-respected Senator, surprised just about everyone  by stating he was not going to run for re-election, thereby declaring he was not beholding to the President.

Are members of Congress afraid of the President and his personal attacks?  I believe the Chief Justice did say so…in a very diplomatic manner.  If this is the case, and the Legislative Branch will not use its power of checks and balances on the Executive Branch, then it is up to the Judiciary to do so.  Unfortunately, even if SCOTUS were to deliver an opinion that was not favorable to the President, how would it be enforced when the Executive Branch is the enforcement arm of our government?
  
So, is it Trump’s behavior of requiring complete loyalty of his minions causing the court system and Congress to look the other way and allow the checks and balance system to fail?  Because, if that is the case, the Rule of Law doesn’t apply and an Imperial Presidency is exactly what will develop…something the Founding Fathers did not want.

That is why the Constitution was written as it is.  In fact, Article 1 of the Constitution is the Legislative Branch, NOT, the Executive Branch, and it was done so because of the fear of a singular person becoming all too powerful.

I’ll let you arrive at your own conclusion.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2 Comments

Lost concept

7/7/2025

0 Comments

 
I would like to address a concept of politics, whether it be in the United States or any other democratic state in the world.  That concept is “loyal opposition”.  We have lost that in our American democracy.

This concept is vital to keep an open and meaningful dialogue for those in power.  A concept promotes friendly, but sometimes heated debate.  It allows the difference of opinions to exist without reprisal from the party in the majority.  Why is that important?

The term “loyal” indicates that no matter what the difference of opinion may be between two political parties, all members of such parties recognize they are citizens of the same country.  It implies, if the country fails, then the elected politicians fail those who elected us to our positions of power and authority.  And with that, from the debris of a failed constitutional democracy, another form of government will emerge.

The term “opposition” indicates the elected politicians of the minority party, will represent the opinion of that part of the citizenry who supports them.  That opinion may very well run contrary to some, if not all ideas of the majority party.  The rights of the minority party are given a degree of respect.  In a sense, this means the minority parties rights are not set aside by the majority party by the legislative process, by executive order, or by royal decree.
  
Loyal opposition promotes statesmanship.  It promotes the management of public affairs in such a manner that both parties can reach an agreement.  In other words, compromise, which is a fundamental element of a democracy much like ours in the United States.

Because of the lack of understanding the term of “loyal opposition”, we, as a population, have learned to hate, despise, loathe members of the political party of which one may not be a member.  All one has to do is read commentary of one of several social media platforms to realize this to be true.  How far has this gone?  In a political speech conducted by the current President of the United States in the state of Iowa, the President said,
 
“…with all of the things we did, with the tax cuts and rebuilding our military, not one Democrat voted for us. And I think we used it in the campaign that’s coming up, the midterms, because we got to beat them. But all of the — all of the things that we’ve given, and they wouldn’t vote, only because they hate Trump. But I hate them, too. You know that? So, it’s sort of the — I hate — I really do.”

When the leader of the United States, the leader of the free world, the one person who is supposed to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States makes this kind of statement, he is encouraging division in our One Big Beautiful Country.  He is rejecting the concept of “loyal opposition” to the point of implying, “if you ain’t with us, you’re against us” or “it’s our way or the highway”.  There is no room for compromise and that leads to a very hostile atmosphere in our political system, one that cannot sustain a somewhat harmonious life for those of us who must decide which political party to support…or just say the hell with it and not participate at all.
​
And that my friends may very well be the beginning of the end for the United States of America as we know it to be.  That is just this man’s opinion.
 
0 Comments

Educational Funding...at what price?

7/3/2025

0 Comments

 
I must give thanks for Dr. Sasha Anaya for bringing this to my attention.  The good doctor is one of my former students.  She has done well for herself.

As of July 1, 2025, the Department of Education is withholding approximately 6.2 BILLION in funding for education throughout the United States.  According to Reuters on July 2nd, “A spokesman at the White House Office of Management and Budget said on Wednesday there was an "ongoing programmatic review" of education funding and that initial findings showed what he termed as a misuse of grant funds to "subsidize a radical leftwing agenda." 
​ 
 However, The Learning Policy Institute stated the billions of dollars of congressionally appropriated funds across five programs currently remained unavailable to states and territories. The funds were meant for after-school and summer programs and initiatives for migrant students and those who speak limited English, it said.

The Trump administration has threatened schools over other matters that include DEI practices, transgender policies, and protests against Israel and supporting Palestinians.  Many universities are now examining their DEI policies and are in the midst of acquiescing to the demands of the President.  Harvard may be the only university to be objecting to the threat by the Trump administration.

So, the question that needs to be answered is:  How can the Department of Education withhold Congressional appropriations when the Constitution gives the strings of the national purse to Congress?

It is generally not legal for the federal government to withhold appropriated funds.  The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (CIA) restricts the Executive Branch ability to refuse to spend money that Congress has approved. The President can propose rescissions or deferrals, but these require specific procedures and congressional approval. 
Please allow me to provide an explanation to the process.  And you may thank AI for this.

Constitutional Basis:

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the "power of the purse," meaning they control government spending. The President's role is primarily to execute the laws passed by Congress, including spending laws. 

Impoundment Control Act:

This act was passed in response to President Nixon's attempts to withhold funds from programs he disagreed with. It established procedures for the President to propose rescissions (cancellations) or deferrals (temporary delays) of appropriated funds.
 
Rescissions:
If the President wants to cancel an appropriation, they must send a special message to Congress outlining the reasons and the proposed impact. Congress then has a set period of time (45 days) to approve the rescission. If Congress does not approve, the funds must be released.
 
Deferrals:
The President can also propose a deferral, which is a temporary delay in spending. This also requires a special message to Congress.
 
GAO's Role
The  Government Accountability Office (GAO) plays a role in overseeing impoundments and ensuring compliance with the ICA. The GAO can review impoundment actions and report any violations of the law.
 
Consequences of Illegal Impoundment:
Refusing to spend appropriated funds without following the proper procedures is illegal and can be challenged in court. For example, several cases against President Nixon's impoundment practices were successful.
 
Exceptions and Limitations:
While the ICA generally prohibits the President from unilaterally withholding funds, there are some limited exceptions and situations where the President may have some flexibility, such as in cases of budget emergencies or when funds are not needed.  However, even in these cases, the President must act within the established legal framework. 
 
So, then, the answer to the posed question?  The One Big Beautiful Bill Act
 
How does that happen?
 
The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is a budget reconciliation bill. It was passed by the House of Representatives and Senate using the reconciliation process, which allows certain bills to bypass the usual Senate filibuster rules. In essence, the reconciliation process allows the previously ratified budget from the prior year to be changed.
  
Keep in mind the budget from last year was ratified by the House and Senate in 2024, with the Republicans controlling the House and the Democrats controlling the Senate.  And just for general knowledge, ALL revenue bills must originate in the House.  So, it may be assumed, the Republican controlled House had a great deal of influence on funding SNAP and Medicaid when the budget was ratified.

In the context of the US budget reconciliation process, a reconciliation bill can be used to affect spending, but the process has limitations regarding canceling previous appropriations. 
 
Let the following explain what the reconciliation process can and cannot do.
  • Mandatory Spending: Reconciliation bills can be used to make changes to mandatory or entitlement spending programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid. This is because mandatory spending is determined by existing laws, and reconciliation allows changes to these laws, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
  • Discretionary Spending: Generally, reconciliation has not been used to either enact new or cancel existing discretionary spending. Discretionary spending, such as annual funding for the Departments of Education or Defense, is controlled through the regular appropriations process, which is separate from the reconciliation process.
  • Rescinding Previously Appropriated Funds: In theory, a reconciliation bill could include a provision to rescind unspent and unobligated discretionary funds that were previously appropriated. However, this would require specific instructions in the budget resolution given to the Appropriations Committees. The Economic Policy Innovation Center reports that the Appropriations Committees have not received such instructions since FY 1982.
  • Byrd Rule: A key limitation on the reconciliation process is the "Byrd Rule." This rule states that provisions in a reconciliation bill must be primarily budget-related. The rescission of previously appropriated discretionary funds would have to demonstrate a clear change in outlays to comply with this rule. Provisions that don't change spending or revenues, or that rely on future action (like subsequent annual appropriations), are unlikely to pass the Byrd Rule test. 
​
In essence, while a reconciliation bill could theoretically be used to rescind unspent discretionary funds, it's generally not used for this purpose due to the rules and limitations of the process, particularly the Byrd Rule. The primary focus of reconciliation is on mandatory spending, revenue changes, and the debt limit. 

What are the points of emphasis for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act?

·       "One Big Beautiful Bill" context:
The "One Big Beautiful Bill" is a reconciliation bill that was a key part of President Trump's second-term domestic agenda.
 
·       Key components:
The bill includes significant tax cuts, funding for defense, and provisions related to border security, immigration, and healthcare programs like Medicaid.

And that will bring us back to Doe, as the song lyrics state.  Only this doe is a Supreme Court decision that originated in Texas in 1982, Plyler v. Doe.
 
In Plyler v. Doe, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot constitutionally deny a free public education to students based on their immigration status.  The 1982 case involved a Texas law that withheld state funds from local school districts for educating undocumented children and allowed districts to deny enrollment to these children. The Court held that this violated the Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

There are many aspects of this case that should apply to the federal government withholding appropriated money from the education system of our nation.  Those aspects are as follows:
 
·       Texas Law:

The Texas legislature enacted a law that allowed local school districts to deny enrollment to, and withhold state funding for the education of, undocumented children.
 
·       Fourteenth Amendment Violation:

The Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, determined that this law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law to all individuals within a state's jurisdiction. 


·       Undocumented Children's Rights:
The Court recognized that denying undocumented children access to public education creates a marginalized group with limited opportunities, harming both the individuals and society as a whole. 


·       No Rational Basis:
The Court found that the Texas law lacked a rational basis for discriminating against undocumented children and did not serve any legitimate state interest.
 
·       Impact:
Plyler v. Doe ensured that all children, regardless of immigration status, have access to a free public education through 12th grade, according to the National Immigration Law Center. 

 
It is my opinion if the President wants to close the Department of Education as he has stated, then do it.  First, get permission from Congress to do so…that should be a slam dunk.  Then, give the individual state ample time to raise taxes to replace the lost federal funding.  It is also my opinion the Department of Education, acting upon the direction of the President, is withhold funding that public schools around the nation built their budgets on.  By state law, most all school expenditures must be included in the state budget and that amount is the sum of each school district budget.  That money being withheld by the federal government is appropriated by Congress, and it is categorized as “Discretionary Spending”.  
 
Withholding funding will undoubtedly cause school districts to cut programs and faculty.  Why?  Because the individual states haven’t had enough time to raise taxes to compensate for the lost federal funding.  This will set education in the United States back for years to come.  The only ones who will suffer the most will be the students.  Classroom teachers, of which there is a national shortage as it is, will leave the classroom for greener pastures.  The job is tough enough as it is…why would classroom instructors stick around to work in an underfunded entity?
 
If the Learning Policy Institute is correct, the funds meant for after-school and summer programs and initiatives for migrant students and those who speak limited English, being withheld by the Department of Education, under the direction of the President, could quite possibly be in violation of Plyler v. Doe.  Unfortunately, it will take a long, drawn-out court battle to see who is compliant with the law.

I’m betting it isn’t the Executive Branch.
 
 
 
 
0 Comments

Letter to Senator Kelly

6/30/2025

0 Comments

 
 This is the text of a letter I forwarded to Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona.

​Dear Senator:

I would like to ask for an answer to a question that has been simmering in my mind for some time.  But before I pose that question, and for full disclosure, let me say, I am a retired secondary educator who just happened to teach US History and Government for over 30 years.  I have a small understanding of our country’s history and ongoings in Washington.  I am a lifelong registered Republican who supported Nikki Haley.  I did not vote for President Trump for various reasons. AND, I like your politics, to the point of seriously considering jumping ship and registering as a Democrat because the MAGA Republicans do not represent my interests.

With the President now being able to sign an Executive Order to eliminate birthright citizenship because HIS interpretation of the 14th Amendment doesn’t align with what has been accepted for over 150 years…I have my own interpretation of a portion in the Third Clause of the same amendment.

I am quite confident you are aware of the Third Clause of the 14th Amendment.  To emphasize my concern, I have taken the liberty to include the text of the Third Clause of said Amendment, with the portion of the clause that has my attention in bold type.

 “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

As I understand the evidence and proceedings of the “January 6th” Committee, I am convinced there was enough evidence to charge the President with Seditious Conspiracy.  I am acutely aware this charge is difficult to prove.  Some would have preferred to charge the President with “Insurrection”, but that would be even more difficult of a verdict to ascertain. 
 
From the New Oxford dictionary…

insurrection | ˌinsəˈrekSHən | noun; a violent uprising against an authority or government:

Surprisingly, the thesaurus for the New Oxford dictionary lists the following words related to “insurrection”.

rebellion, revolt, uprising, mutiny, revolution, insurgence, insurgency, rising, rioting, riot, sedition; civil disobedience, civil disorder, unrest, anarchy, fighting in the streets; coup; French coup d'état

And the definition of sedition, or, sedition conspiracy as offered by the New Oxford dictionary would be:

seditious | səˈdiSHəs | adjective; inciting or causing people to rebel against the authority of a state
 
That being said, it is highly probable Seditious Conspiracy would be between two or more planning to interrupt the process of government, but failing to act.  In essence, the difference between the two is, seditious conspiracy is “the talk” while insurrection is “the walk or action” if you will.
  
While the President’s speech on the Ellipse on January 6th , 2021 certainly stoked the fire of the attack on the Capitol, it was nothing more than inciting the people to commit to the attack.  In the President’s words, 

“…We fight like hell. And if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore…”

In my view, that statement was a call to arms to his supporters, but, as we know, the President was never found guilty of any wrong doing.  However, many of his supporters, about 1600, were.  Some of those found guilty were members of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.  They were convicted of seditious conspiracy and not insurrection…which makes me wonder about the prosecution of these people. 

On day one of his second term in office, President Trump commuted the sentences of the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers.  It is clear to me many “rioters” were attacking the Capitol building in an attempt to interfere with the government action of canvassing the Electoral College votes, a duty of the Vice President in his role as President of the Senate. 

Many members of the both chambers were in danger, maybe yourself included, at the hands of the rioters (insurrectionists).  The January 6th Committee uncovered evidence indicating Vice President Pence’ life was threatened as well as Nancy Pelosi’s life.  All of this action during this attack on the Capitol and the members of both chambers of Congress reeks of more than seditious conspiracy…but, I understand how difficult it would be to prove it…but there were convictions regarding that illegal activity.

And here Senator, is my concern.  If the President granted commuted sentences to those who were convicted of seditious conspiracy, has he not given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof?  And, if this assumption is accurate, is this not grounds for impeachment?

I realize SCOTUS has ruled any action taken by the President in an official capacity of the office is legal (and I disagree with that opinion) but, in my view, this is a clear violation of the 14th Amendment, Clause Three.  The President’s action may not be a high crime or misdemeanor, but it certainly aided enemies of the state, whom I might add the President called patriots.

These so-called patriots attempted to interfere with governmental procedure outlined in the Constitution of the United States.  These so-called patriots destroyed governmental property and threatened the lives of elected federal officials.  And yet, the President commuted their sentences.

As for me, I know spending years behind prison bars would not be my cup of tea.  It would present physical and mental hardship to me beyond description.  I am of the opinion, for most all people, the same may apply.  With that being said, in my thoughts, the President has given aid or comfort to those who were convicted of Seditious Conspiracy and is thereby not qualified to hold the office of the President of the United States.

Why hasn’t this been brought before Congress?  I know the argument the GOP would bring up…”the Dems just want to get rid of Trump so they can open the border again”, or, “the Dems have DJT syndrome”.  But if someone in a place of authority doesn’t bring up what I believe are substantial allegations, then the Constitution of the United States has been invalidated.  Our country will no longer stand for what many of us believe…the same things the founding fathers believed.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America”
 
Very Truly Yours, 
 
 
Jamie Simms

 
 
 
0 Comments

SCOTUS SCREW-UP

6/27/2025

0 Comments

 
It is this man’s opinion there may be more in play with the recent SCOTUS ruling regarding lower federal courts ruling on Presidential Executive Orders.  If the 14th Amendment can be changed by Executive Order, our American society as we know it will be broken beyond repair.  Civil Rights will no longer be a thing guaranteed…the President even said as much.  Laws could be made for certain classes of people, which, as it stands, under the 14th Amendment cannot happen…we are all first-class citizens under the law.  Please note “all” is equivalent to 100 per cent of the citizens of this great nation.

Here are two areas of my concern.

Under attack by the present-day administration is the 14th Amendment.  In particular, the current administration wishes to do away with “birthright citizenship”.  The general consensus regarding birthright citizenship has been if a person is born on American soil, then that person is a citizen of the United States.  The argument has always been about “the soil” and not “the blood”.  This concept known as jus soli (the soil) means that anyone born in a particular country is a citizen of that country…otherwise known as birthright citizenship.  The concept of jus sanguinis (the blood) determines a person’s citizenship based on the blood or citizenship of parents.
  
Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship conflicts with a Supreme Court case from 1898 that held that the Citizenship Clause made citizens of all children born on U.S. soil with narrow exceptions that are not at issue in the case currently before the court.

However, there are some exceptions.  The 14th Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to is jurisdiction are citizens.  But this clause excludes certain groups of people from claiming US citizenship regardless of being born in the U.S.  Those groups of people excluded by the “subject to jurisdiction clause are children of foreign diplomats that are stationed in the United States and some members of certain indigenous tribes whose relationship with the U.S. is limited.

In my opinion, what SCOTUS has done has given the Executive Branch (the President) the opportunity to change the Constitution without going through the amendment process.  By hearing the case brought before the Court by the Executive Branch and ruling that lower federal courts cannot rule against an executive order, the President’s executive order regarding birthright citizenship could become law.  This is akin to negating the 14th Amendment and its clause “ guaranteeing them (citizens) equal protection under state laws and forbidding states from infringing on the privileges or immunities of citizens” otherwise known as first class citizenship.

And if this were to happen, what other civil rights could be taken from the population?  Most of the American population has citizenship by the term birthright citizenship.  The common argument would be the Executive Order only applies to undocumented citizens having children in the U.S., but does it?

The first civil right I can think of that would be taken would be the right to vote.  After all, during his campaign, the Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump told Christians that if they vote for him this November (2024), "in four years, you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good, you're not gonna have to vote."  With the SCOTUS decision…could this happen?
  
And if the citizenship cannot vote…who then becomes the President?  Or will there be a change?

And, there is another question regarding the 14th Amendment that is far more troubling to me.  It deals with the Third Clause of the amendment.  Specifically, the Third Clause of the 14th Amendment bars those who previously took an oath to support the Constitution from holding office if they then engage in insurrection or rebellion against the US, or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.
​
I am confident no charges of insurrection will ever be brought against the President until, if it happens, when he leaves office.  Sitting Presidents are not normally prosecuted unless it is a high crime or misdemeanor against the government.  Even though the “January 6th Committee” conducted an exhaustive investigation into the January 6th insurrection, and evidence certainly provided the President had a hand in that event, no charges were brought against him.
 
BUT, the portion of the Third Clause that grabs my attention is “… or gave aid and comfort to its enemies.”  Did the President give aid or comfort to approximately 1500 insurrectionists he pardoned?  Many if not all had been arrested and convicted for their part in the attack on the Capitol, January 6th, 2021.  I can’t imagine spending a portion of my life behind bars…so any pardon or clemency would certainly give me relief which would provide me a degree of comfort.  I am somewhat sure, those who were being held for their conviction pertaining to the January 6th insurrection feel the same.
 
Yet, surprisingly, I haven’t heard a single elected official bring this to the table for discussion.  Why is that?
 
I suppose, for those of us who are old enough, the saying “Only the Shadow Knows” may apply.
 
 

0 Comments

Let's find fundamental truth

6/21/2025

0 Comments

 
There have been a few things that have “stuck” with me during my lifetime.  I have always been fascinated with the US Civil War; the generals, the battlefields, the reasons for and the aftermath.  I have an interest in the Ancient Greeks, one in particular, Socrates.  I surmise that is because I became a teacher, and Socrates developed the “Socratic Method” as a form of education to have students develop a sense of finding the truth of a matter.  And, because Athens is called the birthplace of democracy…my attachment to Athens is self-evident.

To be sure, there have been quotes that have “stuck” with me.  My father always told me to “Do it right the first time and you won’t get called back to fix your mistake”.  My high school football coach preached “Don’t take a play off, because lightning may strike.”  There have been others for sure, but, recently, another quote came to me.  “You cannot question a man’s judgment, but you can question his motivation”.

It is combination of all of these thoughts I often ask why?  Why is it so?  And that leads me to the subject of this article.

Friday, June 20, President Trump called for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election which he lost to Joe Biden.  This has been reported by several news agencies, Forbes, the Hill, NBC News, USA Today, Huffington Post to name a few.  All have reported the same.

From Forbes…

President Donald Trump called Friday for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate former President Joe Biden’s win in the 2020 election, as Trump has continued to push baseless evidence of fraud in the election despite still facing criminal charges for his post-election efforts.
Trump railed against the 2020 election results on Truth Social Friday morning, claiming the election was a “total FRAUD.”

From The Hill…

“Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD! The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING,” Trump posted. “A Special Prosecutor must be appointed. This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!”

Trump lost the 2020 election to former President Biden. There is no evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, despite years of claims otherwise from Trump and some of his allies.

From NBC…

President Donald Trump on Friday posted a call on social media for a special prosecutor to investigate the 2020 election, which he lost to Joe Biden more than four years ago.

"A Special Prosecutor must be appointed," Trump wrote. "This cannot be allowed to happen again in the United States of America! Let the work begin!"

From USA Today…

"Biden was grossly incompetent, and the 2020 election was a total FRAUD! The evidence is MASSIVE and OVERWHELMING. A Special Prosecutor must be appointed," Trump wrote on social media June 20
.
From the Huffington Post…

President Donald Trump on Friday called for a special prosecutor to be appointed to investigate the 2020 presidential election that he lost, repeating his unsubstantiated, broken-record claims that the contest was stolen from him.

​

Despite over 60 previous lawsuits regarding voter fraud in the 2020 election filed by the President’s lawyers, not one survived the litmus test of the court system.  All were tossed because of a lack of evidence.  Even Trump’s Attorney General Bill Barr stated he saw no reason to believe the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.  To be sure, there are still court cases in the process of being adjudicated regarding false electors of Trump.

So, when I ask why about Trump’s request for a special prosecutor, understand I want to get to the fundamental truth of the situation.  Socrates would understand that.  In fact, Socrates was sentenced to death for inspiring his students to question the government.  But, it appears, in the world of Trump, one cannot question.
  
And if one does not agree with Trump, the results are just as bad.  It was Tulsi Gabbard who just found out if the information presented at a Senate hearing does not “jive” with Trump, expect a public rebuttal stating, “She’s wrong”.

This brings me to the recent quote I heard, “You cannot question a man’s judgment, but you can question his motivation”.  I guess Socrates would agree with this, after all, the Socratic Method requires questioning to get to the fundamental truth…something Socrates call “virtue”
.
And from whom did the quote come?  During his time as President of the United States, Joe Biden.
 


0 Comments

Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire

6/20/2025

0 Comments

 
I apologize for not being more prudent with my articles.  However, in my defense, I have had a difficult time trying to determine what to write about given the everchanging events from D.C. and the rest of the world.  But I will give this opportunity to our leader of our nation’s spies’.

Imagine if you will, you have been hired by a large 500 Fortune corporation and put in charge of a most important division of said corporation.  Imagine you have reported to the board of directors your conclusions after consulting with those in your division regarding highly sensitive, industrial intelligence.  Then imagine, the CEO of said corporation makes a public statement indicating the CEO doesn’t care what your report may state because the CEO believes you are wrong.

What do you do?  Do you quit because the CEO has doubted your work?  Do you become angry and give the CEO the middle finger salute as you exit the building?  Do you keep your calm and put your head down and recheck your information given in your report?  What do you do?

Now here is the real scenario…

On March 25, 2025, Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard testified at a Senate hearing concerning global threats. This hearing was part of the Annual Threat Assessment of the U.S. Intelligence Community. Part of her testimony was…

“…Iran continues to seeks expansion of its influence in the Middle East, despite the degradation to its proxies and defenses during the Gaza conflict. Iran has developed and maintains ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and UAVs, including systems capable of striking U.S. targets and allies in the region. Tehran has shown a willingness to use these weapons, including during a 2020 attack on U.S. forces in Iraq and in attacks against Israel in April and October 2024. Iran's cyber operations and capabilities also present a serious threat to U.S. networks and data.

The IC continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and Supreme Leader Khamanei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003. The IC is closely monitoring if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program…”

​
Today, June 20th, President Trump refuted his appointed Director of National Intelligence testimony.  Reuters reported President Trump said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was wrong in suggesting there is no evidence Iran is building a nuclear weapon.

Trump contested intelligence assessments relayed earlier this year by his spy chief that Tehran was not working on a nuclear weapon when he spoke with reporters at an airport in Morristown, New Jersey.  Trump simply said, “She’s wrong”.

So, if you were Director Gabbard…what do you do? 
 
The President has publicly refuted your work, your work by your department.  He has sent the message, our intelligence community doesn’t know what it is doing.  And it appears Trump doesn’t trust Gabbard or her department and has given all involved a vote of no confidence.

I say this because, several questions come to me regarding this public denouncing of Gabbard.
 
First, with whom has Trump been discussing national intelligence, if he hasn’t spoken with Gabbard and her division?
  
Second, is there a “shadow” or black ops intelligence gathering division of government that goes unmentioned, and if that is the case, why is Gabbard and her intelligence division even in operation, if the President is relying on information from another source other than Gabbard?
  
Third, is this Trump just being Trump and having to be the alpha dog in the room?  The person with all of the knowledge regarding all aspects of the government?

Fourth, did Gabbard get it wrong or did she openly lie to the Senate committee to which she was testifying before, and if so…why?

So, if you were Tulsi Gabbard, what do you do?  Gabbard’s office has issued a statement she and her department are “aligned” with the White House.  Gabbard still has her job…for now.

Afterall, we do know the President has often said, “You’re fired” while filming his TV show, The Apprentice.  Unfortunately, this isn’t reality TV.

 
 

0 Comments

You Can't Have it Both Ways

6/9/2025

0 Comments

 
Before I get into the nuts and bolts of this entry, there are some things that I must clarify so you, the reader, will become aware of what I am trying to say.  As I have watched the events unfold in Los Angeles over this past weekend (June 7 and 8) I have tried to make sense of what is happening.  I understand the President’s desire to rid the nation of undocumented citizens, but that doesn’t mean I agree with his methods.  I understand why the protests have taken place, but, again, that doesn’t mean I agree with the methods of the protestors.

I also know one of the requirements of any country is to have borders.  Those borders can be geophysical boundaries like mountains, rivers, oceans, or arbitrarily drawn lines in the sand.  Simply said, without borders, there is no country.  I also know there are few countries in the world that have immigrants in quantity as part of the national population like the United States.

I know that immigration reform is the charge of the Congress.  It is stated so in the Constitution (Art. 1, Sec 8). The most recent comprehensive immigration bill passed by Congress was the Immigration and Reform and Control Act of 1986 (also known as the Simpson-Mazzoli Act or the Reagan Amnesty). This bill, signed into law in November 1986, granted legalization to millions of unauthorized immigrants and also imposed sanctions on employers who hired unauthorized workers. While there have been numerous other bills and efforts to address immigration reform since then, none have achieved comprehensive legislation in the same way as the 1986 act.  (Please note, this act granted legalization to millions of unauthorized immigrants.) There have been other acts like the Laken Riley Act(S. 5) requires DHS to detain undocumented individuals arrested for specific crimes. The American Dream and Promise Act (H.R. 16) and other bills, including the DIGNIDAD Act, offer paths to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, particularly Dreamers and those with temporary protected status.

So, with this in mind, I have arrived at the conclusion “You Can’t Have it Both Ways!”
​
How is it that ICE can arrest and detain immigrants outside of immigration courts as those seeking to gain entrance to the United States in a legal manner?  Isn’t that what this federal administration wants…for immigrants to legally enter the United States?  How is that?

How is it the President can invoke the Insurrection Act and declare the protests in Los Angeles an “insurrection”, but having previously turned his back on the insurrection on January 6, 2021 at the nation's capitol?  If the President can send the National Guard to Los Angeles, then why did the President ask then Speaker of the House Pelosi, if she wanted the National Guard brought in to the Capitol?  How is that?

In the event one may not know the definition of “insurrection”, here is a dictionary description of “insurrection”:  insurrection | ˌinsəˈrekSHən | noun a violent uprising against an authority or government

In my view…there isn’t any difference between what is happening in Los Angeles and what happened in Washington DC, except for the behavior of the President.

And for those in Los Angeles protesting, I ask these questions:  Why did you come to this country?  (I can only speculate it was for a better life, a chance to improve your station in life, to get away from the corruption of your country of origin.)  Why, then, would you wave a flag of another nation (Mexican flag) if you want to stay in this country?  All that does is infuriate the members of the population who have had family members sacrifice their life for this country and freedom.  It’s okay to be Mexican-American, but one cannot be loyal to another country if you choose to immigrate to this country.  How is that?

President Theodore Roosevelt addressed this in a speech given during his administration in the early 1900s.

“In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American...There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag...”
​
As I have said, “You Can’t Have it Both Ways”
0 Comments

A little reflection; What were they thinking?

5/26/2025

0 Comments

 
Admittedly, it has taken some time for me to mentally commit to what I thought would be a good entry.  Eventually, I, came to the conclusion, that with all of the things running through my mind, one subject wouldn’t do.  So, I am going to write about several things that have passed through my mind.
​
First and foremost, my wife and I celebrated our 50th wedding anniversary earlier last week, May 22nd.  We received many well wishes from people that span those 50 years, and we really appreciate those wishes.  For people to take time from their busy day to wish us well and extend congratulations does not go unnoticed by the two of us.  Thank you all!

Secondly, this being Memorial Day, a day that is reserved for remembering those military souls who did not come home from deployment, I must mention Rusty Crider, my next-door neighbor, my partner in crime, who did not come home from Vietnam.  In May of 1968 we received word of the death of Russell Duane Crider of the United States Marines, killed in action in the Khe Sahn Triangle in Vietnam. Rusty paid it forward with his life doing what he believed to be the right thing to do.

I have thought of you many times old friend. Words cannot express my thoughts regarding your sacrifice and service. I just wish you were here so we could laugh together again.
 
And now…what were they thinking?
 
Secretary of Homeland Defense, Kristi Noem, has made several television commercials indicating how many undocumented citizens have been arrested, highlighting those who are hardened criminals.  As the commercial continues, Noem says to the viewers, if you are an illegal immigrant, we will find you and deport you.  You will be fined about 1000 dollars a day while you are detained.  But if you leave now, and register with our website, you may be able to return.
 
I’m not the sharpest knife in the drawer, and I need help understanding how an illegal immigrant, who has come to this country for whatever reason…knowing they cannot find any work except that, that is paid “under the table” and is a low wage…how in the hell will the illegal immigrant who is detained be able to pay the fine?  Most all cannot afford that fine…so does that make any sense?  Better yet, to whom does the illegal immigrant pay the fine, and where will that money be placed in the national budget?
  
What the hell were those who implemented this policy thinking?

On to Noem’s boss, the President.

In President Trump’s campaign, he said he would end the war in Ukraine on Day 1 of his administration.  Yet the war rages on.  Several weeks ago, in a highly publicized White House meeting with President Zelenskyy of the Ukraine, both our President and Vice President left their role as diplomats and affronted Zelenskyy about the war in his home country.  Ukraine has relied on American help to defend itself from the invader Putin and his Russian military.  President Trump told Zelenskyy, he didn’t hold any cards, and that he (Trump) held the cards to bring peace to the region.
​  
Today, Trump has issued the statement he is not happy with Putin for his continued war with Ukraine, even though a prisoner exchange was executed recently.  Putin has continued to pound Ukraine.  What is Trump going to do about it?

So, who holds the cards?

And just one more interesting tidbit regarding our President.  He delivered the Commencement Address at West Point.  One would think the address would be centered around Duty, Honor, Country, a topic General Doug MacArthur spoke of as he gave his farewell address to Congress in the 1950s.  But noooooo…….

The address given by Trump included yachts, trophy wives (stay away from them; c’mon man, you’ve had three trophy wives), how he rebuilt the military in his first administration, and, a claim that recruitment was down during the Biden administration, yet, most all who graduated from the Point entered the academy during Biden’s administration.

What a sad state of affairs.  I’ll just leave you with this…what the hell was he thinking?
 
0 Comments

My Analysis of the Direction of our Nation

5/10/2025

0 Comments

 
After writing the three-part article defining Fascism, and observing the present administration’s actions, I have arrived at this conclusion.  The President is moving our government to a more powerful, centralized figurehead (the Presidency), resulting in a less democratic state under the guise of Make America Great Again.

The President is not governing by using the parameters as set forth by the Constitution.  Those including the idea of three separate, but, equal branches of government.  Instead, he ruling.  By definition given by Webster’s dictionary, ruling: 
  1. Governing; controlling the will and actions of intelligent beings, or the movements of other physical bodies. 2. Marking by a ruler. 3. Deciding; determining. 4. a. Predominant; chief; controlling; as a ruling passion.

Re-read the very first portion of the Webster’s definition. The fourth portion of the definition helps to clarify the first portion.  Now, think about what that means in a system of government that emphasizes equal branches of government.

Please allow me to review the meaning of Fascism as defined in the first article.
  1. fascism | ˈfaSHˌizəm | (also Fascism) noun an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.
    1. [derogatory] extremely authoritarian, intolerant, or oppressive ideas or behavior: 
    2. [with modifier] very intolerant or domineering views or practices in a particular area: 
    3. Fascism tends to include a belief in the supremacy of one national or ethnic group, a contempt for democracy, an insistence on obedience to a powerful leader, and a strong demagogic approach

How closely does this coincide with my idea of “ruling” instead of using the process of governing as set out by the Constitution, laws, an accepted practices for approximately 250 years of our country’s existence?

Let me point out why I consider this to be of grave importance.

President Donald Trump has been in office for three months and has signed over 120 executive orders during that time.  While some of the orders have been regarding minor issues like paper straws and water pressure, some of Trump's orders have raised concerns including one attempting to change birthright citizenship in the U.S., which the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear in May.

This amounts to the President negating the provisions of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.  In simple terms, the 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, guarantees citizenship to all persons born or naturalized in the United States, including former slaves. 
It also ensures "equal protection of the laws" and prohibits states from depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property without due process. This has been a cornerstone for many landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding civil rights.
 
The President’s argument will be the 14th Amendment was aimed at giving citizenship to the slaves after the Civil War, and not babies born in the United States to undocumented citizens.  It has been accepted since the inception of the 14th Amendment that ANYONE born on US soil is automatically a citizen of the United States.  
The President’s argument will also attempt to overturn the theory of jus soli (of the soil) which has been the accepted practice in the United States for over 150 years, to jus sanquinis, a legal principle where citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents, regardless of the child's birthplace.

The 14th Amendment also guarantees due process in a court of law.  At the moment, the President’s White House Deputy Chief of Staff, Steven Miller, has said the White House (the President) is actively seeking to suspend the rule of Habeas Corpus, which is one of the cornerstones for our legal system.  A prisoner may petition the court through a writ of habeas corpus.  When the writ is issued, it requires the person holding the prisoner to bring them before the court. The court then determines whether the detention is lawful, and if not, the person must be released  The Suspension Clause protects liberty by protecting the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. It provides that the federal government may not suspend this privilege except in extraordinary circumstances: when a rebellion or invasion occurs and the public safety requires it.
 
The President will base his argument on the fact he has stated the United States has suffered an invasion of undocumented citizens and the invasion must be stopped.  Eventually the Court will rule on this action, if it takes place, and will decide on the matter.  So, with that in mind…what constitutes an invasion as compared to immigration.  Using Webster’s once again:

INVASION, noun (singular as well as plural). [Latin invasio, from invado. See Invade.]
 
  1. A hostile entrance into the possessions of another; particularly, the entrance of a hostile army into a country for the purpose of conquest or plunder, or the attack of a military force.
 
IMMIGRATION, noun
 
  1. The passing or removing into a country for the purpose of permanent residence.

So, what is the decision to be made?  Certainly, the President has made a case in the public arena by claiming there are hardened criminals coming into or already in our country, something I do not doubt.  His Secretary of Homeland Defense has made television commercials touting the removal of such people, even going as far as to film in the El Salvadorean prison where the hardened criminals were taken.  And in each commercial, the Secretary says to those who have immigrated here unlawfully, you will be arrested and sent back and you will not be able to return.

In essence, instead of directing Congress to develop a comprehensive bill reforming immigration, the President has selected a group of people to be the burden of everything that is wrong with America.  He has given “cause” for this by indicating the undocumented citizen is a drain on the nation’s economic system, the nation’s health system, and the nation’s Social Security system.  This is somewhat true, but is it enough to forego the legal proceedings guaranteed by the Constitution?  When asked by Kristen Welker of “Meet the Press” regarding this, the President said, “I think so, because if we don’t, we would have millions of court cases and that would take years”.

In addition, the President has failed to heed legal decisions by the nation’s court system.  He has made derogatory statements about the judges who have ruled against his actions.  The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Justice Roberts, has publicly rebuked the President two times for his actions and statements.  In the President’s defense, he has stated he doesn’t worry about the Constitution because he has “very good lawyers working for him” to do that.

Is that enough to ignore the Constitution and court system?  Is this an attempt to centralize power in branch of our national government?

One of the characteristics of a fascist leader is the opposition to democracy; another is totalitarian ambitions.  By disdaining the democratic process and centralizing power in the executive branch, the President has moved our nation in the direction of an autocratic, totalitarian government setting.

The third branch of our government is Congress, both the House and Senate.  Despite the President's party controlling both the House and Senate, little legislation has taken place.  On April 29th of this year, Time magazine reported:


“But the first 110 days of Trump’s administration paints a more complicated picture. Instead of relying on the Republican-led Congress, Trump has leaned heavily on executive action to carry out his agenda, issuing an unprecedented 135 executive orders since he took office in January. In doing so, Trump has largely bypassed Congress at the outset of his Administration, a sharp break from his first term. So far, Congress has only passed six bills—five of which have been signed into law—the fewest of any president in the first 100 days of an administration in the last seven decades, according to a TIME analysis of congressional records.”

With that being said, it may be concluded that the President is making law to fit his Project 2025 agenda through Executive Orders, once again, usurping authority from another “equal” branch of government, to make the Executive Branch the more powerful, centralized figure he really wants to be.

The most recent(?) bill passed by the House and sent to the Senate was The Gulf of America Act, or H.R. 276, is a proposed bill that would rename the Gulf of Mexico as the "Gulf of America". The bill is essentially a codification of a previous executive order signed by President Trump that also renamed the Gulf.  The bill would also require federal agencies to update their documents and maps to reflect the new name within 180 days of enactment. According to the House of Representatives, the bill passed the House on May 8, 2025 and was sent on to the Senate, where no action has taken place.
 

I find the lack of legislation coming from the House and Senate to be alarming.  It would be far too convenient for the President to ask Congress to legislate his agenda, after all, the Republicans control both chambers.  But for one reason or another, the President has not taken that route.  One must ask “Why?”.

As for the issue of tariffs, Article One Section Eight of the Constitution enumerates the powers of the Congress.  One clause deals with “to regulate commerce”.  The commerce clause gives Congress broad power to regulate many aspects of our economy and to pass environmental or consumer protections because so much of business today, either in manufacturing or distribution, crosses state lines. But the commerce clause powers are not unlimited.  Even though it has been accepted practice for Congress to allow the President to levy a tariff for years, why didn’t the President go to Congress (remember the President’s party controls both chambers) and ask for Congress to levy the tariffs to regulate foreign commerce?  Once again, one must ask “Why?”.

My thought is the President wants to be the ruler instead of a part of a working government.  In essence, he wants to be the government, and that my friends, is a total lack of concern for democracy as we know it.

There are many other thoughts I have regarding the methods of this administration.  Voicing those concerns would only look like a smear of mud from me.  I choose not to do that.  But what I do choose to do is champion democracy as suggested by the Founding Fathers, and a Constitution that has been flexible enough to last over two hundred years and serve this country well.
 
 
 
 
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    July 2025
    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • Blog
  • Press
  • Contact
  • New Page
  • Blog 3/11/25
  • 3/16