Why It’s Not Cool That Trump Wants The Constitution Interpreted The Way The Founding Fathers Did

WASHINGTON ― Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump advocated for a literal interpretation of the Constitution during the third, and final debate, on Wednesday.

“The justices that I’m going to appoint will be pro-life, they will have a conservative vent,” Trump said in response to a question about how the Constitution should be interpreted. “They will be protecting the Second Amendment. They are great scholars in all cases ― and they’re people of tremendous respect. They will interpret the Constitution the way the founders wanted it interpreted.”

That’s not cool. Here’s what was going on when the Constitution was written in 1787.

Hillary's comments can not be interpreted in any way that will even suggest that she both understands and respects her oath of office. If she understands it, she is forsworn. If she is not deliberately forsworn, she simply does not understand the oath. That puts her legal acumen on a par with her economic acumen. Very inadequate at the very least.

A Very Confused Candidate

In the Presidential Debate, last night (the 19th of October), Mrs. Clinton explained her approach to job creation. The recital sounded rehearsed & sloganized; but it demonstrated something very different than what she obviously intended. It would be far better described as a path to economic stagnation, than a path to economic progress!

That a woman who has been politically active, her entire adult life, among a people with the most successful history of economic achievement over their first century and a quarter, of any people on earth, under a Constitutional Government designed to protect that people from a bureaucratic pestilence, which has been the bane of most nations; that such a woman has so missed the essential point of the American achievement, is staggering in its implications.

Mrs. Clinton claimed that a Clinton Government would rebuild the "Middle Class." Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.

To "rebuild" the "Middle Class," Mrs. Clinton vowed to make the most successful Americans--those who had achieved the most-- pay increased taxes; she called it "paying their 'fair' share." But it was clearly to be a tax on success--a tax to fund a raft of new programs (a cancer or pestilence of an expanded bureaucracy). She was obviously indifferent to the fact that the biggest impediment to any poor person with ambition, actually launching a small business to improve his status, is an almost incomprehensible explosion in bureaucratic regulations, most of which premised on the same flawed understanding of how people actually advance, which Mrs. Clinton displayed, last night.

Americans used to learn by experience. What were the experience based lessons of what transpired from the drafting of our written Constitution in 1787, until the passage of the income tax amendment in 1913? Are they instructive or not, for what actually works for human advancement?

The Constitution prior to 1913, absolutely interdicted a tax driven war on the accumulation of individual wealth. Article I, Section 9, which Mrs. Clinton should have remembered from Law School, provided that no direct tax on individual Americans could be applied in any way but pro-capita. (That is Warren Buffet would pay the same tax--not the same percentage tax--but the same tax as Joe the Plumber. The Founders had no desire to limit individual success. They sought only to encourage it.

Under there experience based philosophy, there were almost certainly not even 1% of the bureaucratic regulations, with which Americans seeking to improve their lot, must face today. In place of today's pursuit of grievances, real or imagined, there was universal admiration for the high achievers! And the growth rate of a people freed to achieve, was the economic phenomenon of human history.

We do not pretend to know whether it was in her indoctrination by Marxist Pied Pipers, in her late teens, or pure confusion in whatever she is struggling with today. But Mrs. Clinton is utterly clueless on how a dynamic economy works; as she is utterly unaware of the dynamic, interactive factors, that drive or stagnate any human aspiration or achievement. What is absolutely clear, even if one ignores her lack of a moral compass in her political dealings; the woman is absolutely unqualified to be President of the United States.

This is one more reason why we must win this election for Donald Trump.

William Flax

[This may be reproduced, if in full context, with or without attribution.]

Why three-fifths?

...since slaves could not vote, white leaders in slave states would thus have the benefit of increased representation in the House and the Electoral College. Delegates opposed to slavery proposed that only free inhabitants of each state be counted for apportionment purposes, while delegates supportive of slavery, on the other hand, opposed the proposal, wanting slaves to count in their actual numbers.

The compromise that was finally agreed upon—of counting "all other persons" as only three-fifths of their actual numbers—reduced the representation of the slave states relative to the original proposals, but improved it over the Northern position.

An inducement for slave states to accept the Compromise was its tie to taxation in the same ratio, so that the burden of taxation on the slave states was also reduced.

I think you are failing to understand the constitution and the way it was designed in 1781 and redesigned in convention in 1787, from the original articled of confederation. The original document was set up for the individual states to basically government themselves. It wasn’t until 1787 that the federal government changed the ruling capacity giving the federal government more powers.

In the 1787 version, they created article V. which was placed in to create change capacity making amendments available. The founders were aware there was going to be need for changes.

You talked about the determination of making slaves 2/3 of a person. They were actually made that because at that time, property was a major factor of vote counting and the southerners were calling slaves property and using them to pass legislation in the government. The northerners were trying to keep it balanced, so as slavery was still legal at that time, they compromised.

You also mentioned the aspect of LGBT marriage. Even though many argue aqainst it, religion was a major part of the determination as to the definition of marriage which was man and woman using over 30 versus in the Bible.. It took over 200 years to change the thinking. And it was done for the wrong reason. But, it was done.

We’ve come a long way. But don’t automatically say the founders were wrong in what they did as I think they created a living document that, with the ability to change, is working and will outlive anything else that has been dreamed up.

And Trump’s aware of that as with the amendments already in place, he knows what his limitations are. And you can be sure he has used them a few times during his business career. I have too. That’s what they are there for.

So don’t read too much into what people say. They are just as limited as you are.

red

They really do seem to believe we will just lay down and take it forever.

We've been laying down and taking it so far.

The only ones fighting are the Left. They're the ones out there planting evidence, jailing their opponents, committing fraud, vandalizing cars, burning down party headquarters, causing violence at rallies, and on and on. They've taken over the schools, media and entertainment. They're infiltrating the churches next. And then the military.

All the shit they accuse us of doing.

People here talk big about some day in the future when conservatives will rise up and take their country back but when I look around, the only people I see fighting are liberals. We're playing by Marquess of Queensberry rules while the Left is out there kneeing us in the balls.

The Huffington post doesn’t dare mention to low-information voters that the Founding States made the Constitution amendable, slavery prohibited when the states ratified the 13th Amendment.

On the other hand, the states have never amended Constitution to expressly protect either politically correct abortion or LGBT “rights."

And speaking of the amendable Constitution, regarding Hillary’s so-called “constitutional” right to have an abortion, in the debate Hillary necessarily had to indicate that this fictitious constitutional right came from the state sovereignty-ignoring justices who decided Roe v. Wade, not from the Constitution. Again, this is because the states have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect abortion or LGBT issues as rights like the rights protected by the Bill of Rights are.

In fact, the Roe v. Wade justices stole state powers to wrongly establish from the bench the so-called right to have an abortion along with legalizing gay “marriage.”

The bottom line is that because abortion is not a constitutionally enumerated right, Constitution-ignoring Democrats like Hillary must fight tooth-and-nail to keep a pro-abortion activist justice majority on the Court to keep the phony constitutional right to have an abortion alive, corrupt federal lawmakers exploiting low-information women voters with this issue to win their votes.

Remember in November !

Patriots need to support Trump / Pence by also electing a new, state sovereignty-respecting Congress that will not only work within its constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers to support Trump’s vision for making America great again for everybody, but will also put a stop to unconstitutonal federal taxes and likewise unconstitutional inteference in state affairs as evidenced by the unconstitutional legalization of abortion and gay “marriage.”

Note that such a Congress will also probably be willing to fire state sovereignty-ignoring, pro-gay, pro-LGBT agenda activist justices.

Was she totally unaware that the American Middle Class clearly built itself? That the American Middle Class resulted from naturally energized individuals, aspiring to achieve the good life, who risked everything to first clear a wilderness, work hard, generation to generation, to save & accumulate the attributes of the good life; with the result that by 1913--the year that a graduated income tax first became Constitutional, this Settler built Federation of newly settled States, had already surpassed every one of the great powers of Europe in industrial strength.

This is really a great leap of logic. By 1913 there was a complete disconnect between the "middle class" that existed for the first 50-80 years of this country's existence and the middle class as we know it today. The biggest change came about as a result of the Industrial Revolution, when the definition of "middle class" changed from the independent American described above to a laborer who relied on a major industrial corporation for his employment. I'd suggest that the middle class as we define it today could not even exist in the United States as it was founded -- especially when you consider that government employees are the most dominant representatives of our middle class.

All of those things are true. And to the degree the realities conflicted with the Constitution, the Founders failed to live up to their own ideals.

But as the centuries have passed, we have come closer to those ideals. It is inconceivable that we could regard blacks as chattel simply because of their pigmentation. It is absurd that we could deny our sisters and wives the right to vote. So we reflected on the virtues extolled by the Constitution -- we weighed ourselves on its scale and found ourselves wanting. And we corrected those errors.

Pretending fags and dykes can "marry" is a moral decision, not a legal or ideological one. Is equates the perverse deviant relationship between two persons of the same sex to the procreative relationship between opposites. Not only does it fly in the face of accepted morality, it defies nature and logic as well.

Arguing that the Constitution guarantees equality for all people is a lie. People are not equal. They do not -- and CAN not -- accomplish the same things. All the Constitution does (besides establishing a framework for government that seems to be largely ignored these days) is guarantee everyone the SAME rights to reach whatever potential they choose. It does not guarantee equality of outcome.

And however brilliant people like Ruth Bader Ginsburg or Stephen Breyer think they are, they are no brighter than the men who forged the Constitution to begin with. There is nothing they can do to "improve" on it. We don't need Constitution 2.0.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.