Below is my column in Fox.com on the poll released last week showing an increasing number of citizens have lost faith in our constitutional system and now view violence as warranted to silence those with opposing views. It is a crisis of faith that represents the greatest possible threat to our Republic. The loss of faith and fealty constitutes one of the greatest crises that our nation has faced since its foundation. Here is the column:
A recent startling poll shows that a majority of voters not only view the opposing party as a threat to the nation but justifying violence to combat their agenda. The poll captures a crisis of faith that I have been writing about for over a decade as an academic and a commentator. Many now question democracy as a sustainable system of government. It represents the single greatest threat to this nation: a citizenry that has lost faith not just with our system of government but with each other.
The polls by the University of Virginia Center for Politics shows a nation at war with itself. Fifty-two percent of Biden supporters say Republicans are now a threat to American life while 47 percent of Trump supporters say the same about Democrats.
Among Biden supporters, 41 percent now believe violence is justified “to stop [Republicans] from achieving their goals.” An almost identical percentage, 38 percent, of Trump supporters now embrace violence to stop Democrats.
Not surprisingly, many of these people have lost faith in democracy. Some 31 percent of Trump supporters believe that the nation should explore alternative forms of government. Roughly a quarter (24 percent) of Biden supporters also question the viability of democracy.
Faith is the one thing that no system of government can do without. Without faith in the underlying values of a constitutional system, authority rests on a mix of coercion and capitulation.
For years, I have written about this growing loss of faith and how it has been fueled by our intellectual and political elites. In the echo chamber of news and social media, citizens constantly hear how the opposing party is composed of “traitors” and how the constitutional system works to protect enemies of the people.
Viewers now get a steady diet of figures like MSNBC commentator Elie Mystal who called the U.S. Constitution “trash” and argued that we should simply just dump it.
In a New York Times column, “The Constitution Is Broken and Should Not Be Reclaimed,” law professors Ryan D. Doerfler of Harvard and Samuel Moyn of Yale called for the Constitution to be “radically altered” to “reclaim America from constitutionalism.”
Georgetown University Law School Professor Rosa Brooks went on MSNBC’s “The ReidOut” to lash out at Americans becoming “slaves” to the U.S. Constitution and that the Constitution itself is now the problem for the country.
They are part of the radical chic that has become the norm in academia — and widely embraced by the media.
According to these law professors the problem is not just our Constitution, but constitutionalism in general.
Others have argued that key protections or institutions should just be ignored. In a recent open letter, Harvard law professor Mark Tushnet and San Francisco State University political scientist Aaron Belkin called upon President Joe Biden to defy rulings of the Supreme Court that he considers “mistaken” in the name of “popular constitutionalism.”
“Popular constitutionalism” appears a form of discretionary or ad hoc compliance with constituitional law. If only “popular” constitutional rules are followed, the Constitution itself becomes a mere pretense for whatever the shifting majority or forming mob demands.
Politicians have also contributed to this crisis of faith in challenging constitutional values or core institutions. Members like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) has questioned the need for a Supreme Court.
Others like Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass) have called for the packing of the Supreme Court to simply create an immediate liberal majority.
Senate Majority Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY) thrilled his base by going to the steps of the Supreme Court to declare “I want to tell you, Gorsuch. I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price! You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”
It is little surprise that one man showed up at the home of Justice Bret Kavanaugh to kill him for his “awful decisions.”
Conversely, former President Donald Trump has regularly denounced his political opponents as “traitors” and “enemies of the people.” He recently declared “If you go after me, I’m coming after you!”
With leaders engaging in such reckless rhetoric, it is hardly surprising that the Constitution itself is now viewed as threat to our nation rather than the very thing that defines us. It is designed to restrain the majority and protect those who are the least popular in our society.
In the end, a constitution remains a covenant not between citizens and their government but between each other as citizens. It demands a leap of faith; a commitment that despite our differences we will defend the rights of our neighbors.
If nothing else, the Constitution has one thing to recommend it: we are still here. It is a Constitution that has survived economic and political upheavals. It survived a Civil War in which hundreds of thousands were killed.
It is not a particularly poetic document. It was written by the ultimate wonk, James Madison. If you want truly inspirational prose, try any of the French constitutions. Of course, they had more practice since they regularly failed. Other countries based their constitutions on aspirational statements of the values that we shared. The Madisonian system spent as much time on what divided us; it not only recognized the danger of factions but created a system to bring such divisions to the surface where they could be addressed.
The danger of other systems was realized when these divisions were left below the surface where they would fester and explode in the streets of Paris. The American Constitution allowed for a type of controlled implosion toward the center of the system; these factional interests would be expressed and vented in the legislative branch. The Madisonian system does not hide our divisions; it invites their expression.
The question is whether we have reached a time when the things that divide us will now overcome what unites us. This is not our first age of rage. Indeed, at the start of our Republic, rivaling parties were not just figuratively trying to kill each other; they were actually trying to kill each other through laws like the Alien and Sedition Acts. Thomas Jefferson would refer to the term of his predecessor John Adams as “the reign of the witches.”
Yet, that history is no guarantee that it can survive our current age of rage. The relentless attacks on the constitution from the political, media, and academic elite has turned many into constitutional atheists. Yet, the future of our constitutional system may rest with the rising number of constitutional agnostics — those citizens who are simply disconnected or disinterested in the defense of our founding principles.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill warned in 1867 that all it takes for evil to prevail is for “good men [to] look on and do nothing.” We are now in an existential struggle to preserve the values that founded the most successful constitutional system in the history of the world. It is our legacy that now can be either boldly defended by a grateful people or lost in the whimper of a disinterested generation.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Chair of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
“America’s Crisis of Faith: Poll Reveals More Americans Are Rejecting the Constitution and Embracing Violence”
– Professor Turley
____________________
This is nothing new.
Rejection of the law – rejection of the Constitution and the illicit, unconstitutional, and vigorous prosecution of violence – is precisely what “Crazy Abe” Lincoln did, being a “fellow traveler” of Karl Marx.
Violence in the name of the “working man,” the hired help, was Abraham Lincoln’s raison d’etre – communist revolution and the “dictatorship of the hired help.”
America exists under the dominion of the principles of communism: Central planning, control of the means of production (unconstitutional regulation, redistribution of wealth, and social engineering.
Clearly, America lives by and imposes Karl Marx’s motto: “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
Lincoln commenced the incremental implementation of the Communist Manifesto.
America has been “fundamentally transformed” and has arrived at the point of complete communist dominion, all thanks to Lincoln’s initial efforts to end American freedom after merely 71 years.
_______
“These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece the people.”
– Abraham Lincoln, from his first speech as an Illinois state legislator, 1837
________________________________________________________________________________
“Everyone now is more or less a Socialist.”
– Charles Dana, managing editor of the New York Tribune, and Lincoln’s assistant secretary of war, 1848
______________________________________________________________________________________
“The goal of Socialism is Communism.”
– Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
________________________
“They consider…that it fell to the lot of Abraham Lincoln…to lead his country through…the RECONSTRUCTION of a social world.”
– Karl Marx Letter to Abraham Lincoln, 1865
Faith is the one thing that no system of government can do without. Without faith in the underlying values of a constitutional system, authority rests on a mix of coercion and capitulation.
I would argue that people have lost faith in our system of government because they lost or never studied the underlying values of a constitutional system. To many, our system of government is nothing more than a collection of political personalities that belong to two opposing teams. It’s the underlying values of the team that are important, not the system. Frederic Bastiat has provided an excellent explanation of nations get to where we are today.
No society can exist unless the laws are respected to a certain degree. The safest way to make laws respected is to make them respectable. When law and morality contradict each other, the citizen has the cruel alternative of either losing his moral sense or losing his respect for the law. These two evils are of equal consequence, and it would be difficult for a person to choose between them.
The nature of law is to maintain justice. This is so much the case that, in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing. There is in all of us a strong disposition to believe that anything lawful is also legitimate. This belief is so widespread that many persons have erroneously held that things are “just” because law makes them so. Thus, in order to make plunder appear just and sacred to many consciences, it is only necessary for the law to decree and sanction it. Slavery, restrictions, and monopoly find defenders not only among those who profit from them but also among those who suffer from them.
The Fate of Non-Conformists
If you suggest a doubt as to the morality of these institutions, it is boldly said that “You are a dangerous innovator, a utopian, a theorist, a subversive; you would shatter the foundation upon which society rests.” If you lecture upon morality or upon political science, there will be found official organizations petitioning the government in this vein of thought: “That science no longer be taught exclusively from the point of view of free trade (of liberty, of property, and of justice) as has been the case until now, but also, in the future, science is to be especially taught from the viewpoint of the facts and laws that regulate French industry (facts and laws which are contrary to liberty, to property, and to justice). That, in government-endowed teaching positions, the professor rigorously refrain from endangering in the slightest degree the respect due to the laws now in force.”
Thus, if there exists a law which sanctions slavery or monopoly, oppression or robbery, in any form whatever, it must not even be mentioned. For how can it be mentioned without damaging the respect which it inspires? Still further, morality and political economy must be taught from the point of view of this law; from the supposition that it must be a just law merely because it is a law.
Another effect of this tragic perversion of the law is that it gives an exaggerated importance to political passions and conflicts, and to politics in general.
“…in the minds of the people, law and justice are one and the same thing.” I’d add the generic term ‘government’ to list of things in the minds of people that are equal to law and justice.” In the minds of too many, “If government does it, what ever that ‘it’ is, then it must be legal, just, and never to be questioned.” I.E.: If you disagree with government then you’re in violation of the law.
I think that used to be the widespread case since the law generally matched what was reasonable and fair, but now we have all sorts of information we never had before at our fingertips, and also a lot of corrupt laws that have been slammed into the books the last 60 years or so.
How can people possibly respect the law or the government or the Constitution with the wide open borders and the government funded jumbo jet flights of illegals to all the major cities ?
How about civil asset forfeiture as another completely outrageous example.
So it’s not faith we need, it’s the correction of so many laws that we need to accomplish.
The lack of adhesion to our Constitution is a larger and larger group of laws already part of the law base.
“If government does it, what ever that ‘it’ is, then it must be legal, just, and never to be questioned.”
JAFO, I would replace government with “my party”.
Since you mentioned party, it reminded me that it is always happy hour somewhere. Happily that includes east coast. A Cuba Libre drink is in order!
How to Make a Classic Cuba Libre Cocktail
https://www.thespruceeats.com/cuba-libre-recipe-759291
Ingredients
1/2 ounce freshly squeezed lime juice, from 1/2 lime
2 ounces light rum
4 ounces cola
¡Viva Estados Unidos libre!
🇨🇺🇺🇸
Sounds good! I’ll have at least two. 🍹
Is that a “Members Only” qualifier? 😊
Complete with jacket. 😎
The American Founders and Framers held the belief and presented the perspective that religion and the free exercise thereof were preeminent.
The God they “trusted in” was the God of the Hebrew and Christian Bibles.
______________________________________________________________________________________
1st Amendment
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;….
The Bill of Rights and the constitutional rule of law are designed to primarily even the playing field for persons in the electoral “minority” at any given moment.
In less than 30 years, those “minority” persons will be mostly today’s Republican supporters – so strengthening the Bill of Rights and constitutional restraints on authority will benefit Republicans.
James Madison termed it the “tyranny of the majority” – when the majority of voters support unconstitutional practices like torture, illegal Stop & Frisk body searches, warrantless domestic spying or a Bush Preemption Doctrine.
When there is a total failure and abdication of duty by the Legislative and Executive branches of government to follow their constitutional oath of office, a person (usually in a minority group) could hire a constitutional attorney and seek relief in the “Judicial Branch” court system – since laws and practices must circumscribe the U.S. Constitution.
Secret laws and secret practices robs those persons of “legal standing” in a court of law. For example: if the local cop or federal official hates Trump or Obama or is racist (for any reason) that official can illegally spy on you, illegally search your computer, illegally track you (illegal under “Carpenter v. US and federal criminal code 18 US Code 241-245).
For 20 years the Legislative and Executive branches have allowed this law breaking. The U.S. Supreme Court has slowly started to catch up providing judicial review, but for 20 years these Americans were harmed by this illegal blacklisting.
Local, state and federal officials today are still defying U.S. Supreme Court rulings. For example: the explicit language of two landmark U.S. Supreme Court cases makes “warrantless longterm surveillance” (exceeding 2 weeks on any person) a “search” under the Fourth Amendment – requiring a judicial-warrant from an Article III court (traditional court). This illegal practice likely happens thousands of times per day in the USA – defying the high court’s ruling.
Following January 6, it’s highly likely many Trump supporters have been illegally blacklisted also. Conservatives had no problem violating rights of minority groups during the War on Drugs and the War on a Tactic after 9/11.
Conservatives made the “constitutional rule of law” weaker. They supported violating the U.S. Constitution if the “ends” justified the means. One could make a strong argument that the “ends” of gun violence justify the means of stronger gun regulation. Conservatives made that argument valid.
If voters unconstitutional wishes supersede constitutional restraints on authority (which Conservatives supported during the War on Drugs and after 9/11) then right now in 2023, some voters would outlaw guns today in some localities.
By 2054, Republicans will be the minority group. Maybe start supporting the U.S. Constitution?
Increasingly Professor Turley writes as though he is seriously out of touch with mainstream media. Consequently the professor seems to honestly not know what the country is really thinking.
In today’s column, Turley is alarmed that the constitution no longer gets respect. Yet in analyzing this trend, Turley completely ignores developments in the House of Representatives where Republicans cannot agree on a Speaker.
This idiotic crisis is entering its third week; having begun when a single congressman was able to dismiss the last Speaker. What’s more, Kevin McCarthy was dismissed for trying avert a government shutdown. As though a government shutdown was something to celebrate and McCarthy mucked it up!
The Speaker crisis may have more to do with arcane House rules than anything in the Constitution. But this crisis serves as a stark reminder that our system of government is full of vulnerabilities that can be easily exploited by malicious actors.
Since Donald Trump first rose to power, these vulnerabilities have been revealed like termite-eaten wood beneath the kitchen floor. Like how can one senator, Tommy Tuberville, hold up hundreds of military promotions?? Again, the problem here could be arcane congressional rules, but it really looks as though our system of government needs a complete overhaul.
Most of the country is very pleased the congress is half frozen and it appears can’t go on another fat and grift spending spree like they do every other day they are present to work which is way less than half the year.
So your bunched up panties can get back to us in about 6 months.
Natural, considering the left has been teaching our whole tradition is just a racial construct.
Professor Turley is well aware the man arrested outside Kavanaugh’s house called 911 & turned himself in. Meanwhile Turley seems oddly disinterested in the death threats & obscene calls made last week to House Republicans & their families for not supporting Jim Jordan’s House Speaker bid.
Trump’s attorney, Giuliani, was just convicted of libeling two Georgia election workers with his false claims of election fraud. The two women received numerous death threats after Trump & Giuliani targeted them by pushing false political narratives about the 2020 election. Turley’s age-of-rage sermon neglects to include the above mentioned death threats & instead settles on Schumer “thrilling his base” about the political consequences of overturning Roe v Wade.
The startling new poll which Turley cites shows that if the 2024 election was held today, 52% of American would support Biden & 48% would support Trump. Thanks for including the link to the poll, JT.
You tubers get death threats all the time. It’s time to stop whining about it. Anyone in the public eye on social media gets it nowadays.
Words, we have groups of individuals that cry and pull hissy fits when someone uses the wrong one! Then they become accusatory calling those they oppose of being this or that while they run to their protective corner. They call him she, it they, bad good, constitution racist, and on and on they go to their ultra-utopian destination. They are eventually going to run up against Goodman’s “new riddle of induction” which he called ‘Grue’, which also could have a separate broader meaning ‘intransitive’ creeping of the flesh. Once words have meaning other than originally intended confusion prospers with more questions than answers. Mao or Pol would be envious that it was so easy to shift a population.
There are two sides of the Mississippi River, Left and Right.
Democrats-Left to the West of the Mississippi.
Republicans -Right to the East of the Mississippi.
Anyone in the Middle get sent away to Canada.
Problem Solved
The demoncrats get Alaska, that’s it. When they whine we tell them global warming is now coming for sure and we fire up a coal, oil and nuke power plant immediately to prove it.
They whine some more so they get deported to Canada since most of them threatened to leave for there if Trump got elected.
Then we get rid of the criminals the demoncrats human trafficked in for decades.
It’s not like this isn’t our land given to us by God. They all want us dead, exterminated, wiped off the face of the earth, that’s terrorism and genocide and hitler nazi action, so it is all their fault when we do it.
Any law – including the “supreme law of the United States” (our U.S. Constitution) – is absolutely meaningless if there is no legal penalty for law breakers and the laws aren’t enforced equally.
James Madison was a very imperfect genius, but the U.S. Constitution is not perfect and designed to change with the times – using a “constitutional amendment” process.
The U.S. Supreme Court (and it’s inferior court’s) top duty is to provide “constitutional judicial review” – to interpret the letter & spirit of the U.S. Constitution.
The War on Drugs rulings and other emergencies essentially bypassed the legally required constitutional amendment process. For example: the dissenting view on the 1968 U.S. Supreme Court ruling “Terry v. Ohio” is a great read for anyone. A U.S. Supreme Court Justice Douglas literally warned that the court bypassed the constitutional amendment process, destroyed the 4th Amendment and rulings like this would create “totalitarianism” in America.
About 30 years later, George W. Bush gave the figurative death blow to the entire concept of a constitutional rule of law with the Bush Preemption Doctrine – making the 4th Amendment totally meaningless.
The U.S. Supreme Court and Congress supported “Secret Laws” and “Secret Courts”. The entire premise of a constitutional rule of law society is that laws are publicly advertised (not covert) so that citizens can try to abide by the laws.
In this secret law model, legal 1st Amendment activity could be deemed secretly “illegal”. A local police officer or federal agent could view perfectly legal speech as essentially probable cause to search your computer and then punish you covertly – you could never challenge the practice in any court – which happens likely hundreds of times each day.
Then the U.S. Supreme Court bypassed the constitutional amendment process in the 21st Century with rulings like “Kelo v. City of New London Connecticut” destroying eminent domain (depicted in the true life movie “Little Pink House”).
Then “Citizens United” granting “non-human” citizens greater rights than human-citizens. Something Madison would have never supported. The Bill of Rights were designed for humans only.
The U.S. Supreme Court has the burden of fixing this, since all constitutional issues are decided by this court. The high court can require Congress to stay in bounds constitutionally.
Great post.
That is clearly the problem and why people should not like the government or respect it anymore.
You listed a few big ones but there are dozens more and lot of recent total breaking of the Constitution and common fair law written into the books or decided by fiat.
Prof. Turley – the declaration of independence makes clear when the government no longer protects our individual rights but abuses them – violence is justified.
It warns us that we should proceed to violence with caution. That we should endure bad government and attempt to correct it before resorting to violence.
But that ultimately violence may be necescary.
This proposition should be OBVIOUS. It took VIOLENCE a civil war to end slavery.
Many conservatives note that the 2nd amendment exists for when the first amendment fails. A view that is completely consistent with our founders.
There is very little doubt that the constitution has failed today. The government we have has little resemblance to what our founders intended.
That failure – dos NOT mean that there is something wrong with the constitution itself, only that a constitution that is not followed fails.
Tolstoy and others preached a gospel or non-resistance – if you wish to embrace that – please do so openly.
Otherwise you have accepted that there are circumstances in which violence may be legitimate.
The question then becomes have we reached that threshold.
“Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
The question is whether that is where we are ?
You somewhat note the positions of democrats and republicans – trying to provide each equal time.
But you are not clear on the differences. Republicans are for the most part seeking to return to constitutional government.
Democrats are seeking that “ad hoc” constitution of personal grievance.
Is it hard for you to understand that will not end well ?
Wow, Trump may seek revenge upon his enemies for illegally and unconstitutionally weaponizing government against him.
But no, it is more than that – and Trump has been clear and clever enough to make sure this is not about him – because it never was about him.
Those targeting Trump long ago made it clear they were acting on Levanti Berias directive – bring me the man and Ill show you the crime.
Trump has been targeted not for his alleged crimes, but for the impediment he poses to the left.
ANY republican similarly blocking the left’s goal of an emotion driven maleable constitution – the rule of man, not law,.
will face all the same attacks as Trump. No republican candidate in my lifetime has not been accused of being a NAZI by the left.
you note – atleast in part the differences between the right and left.
Yet, to all but the thoroughly muddled the absolute worst threat of the right is to lose several years of leftist advances.
If you really think the GOP as a whole is completely nuts and racist – maybe the right could return us to the 60’s or 70’s
While I do not advocate for that, and many good changes have occured since then – conservatism poses NO EXISTENTIAL THREAT.
Retrenchment – even the worst possible retrenchment would not bring us to a past state of failure.
Conversely the most extreme position of the left advocates throwing out not just the constitution – bet the entirety of at least three millennia of Judaeo Christian advances that lead to it.
It is possible that the left could win the lottery, toss out thousands of years of philosophy, ethics, morality and law and pull from their crystal ball something that actually works better than what we have today. But both history and logic tell us the odds against that are astronomical.
The left wants to bet everything to “shoot the moon” on politics that is not only a logical mess without any foundation, but that to the extent it has been tried in the past – has failed miserably.
The right only seeks to take a step back. Whatever you might feel about 4 years ago ro 20 years ago, or 60 years ago – reverting may or may not be a loss. but it would not bring about failure chaos. While the risk of failure and chaos from the left is very near 100%.
Something is not a threat merely because you say it is.
Two different sets of changes, values or principles are not equally dangerous
The left is an existential threat, the right is not. The absolute worst case if the right should prevail is Jeffersons admonition to prudence and to wait pateintly for further change.
Conversely the probability that the left getting its way would not significantly exceed jefferson’s threshold justifying violence is about as good as willing $1B in the lottery.
As to Trump – I would cite Lincoln regarding Grant “I Cannot Spare This Man; He Fights.”
“It is a Constitution that has survived economic and political upheavals. It survived a Civil War in which hundreds of thousands were killed.”
Really? Has it? We are living in an ever increasing nation of collectivism and decrease in individualism. It would seem we have entered the room of suicide by a thousand cuts and the exit lights have been shut off.
Well, it seems to me Biden’s incitement of hatred has succeeded brilliantly, if these polls are to be believed.
Philosopher John Stuart Mill warned in 1867 that all it takes for evil to prevail is for “good men [to] look on and do nothing.”
Many of us feared America would one day cease to be that “beacon on a hill” which brought us to this nation. We fled authoritarian dictatorships, neighbors/relatives turning against neighbors/relatives, and firing squads, all for ideological purposes. Marxism drove us to the United States, yet here we are seeing authoritarianism & neighbors/relatives turning against neighbors/relatives, for ideological purposes. Firing squads are next. That is the usual trajectory per world history. Hamas did it to Israel as is the long history of militant Muslims towards Jews and Christians dating back to the 7th Century AD. Their supporters in America will do it to all of us. Yes, Americans, it can happen in America and we told you so. You became complacent. It is not too late, however.
Images of burnt bodies, adults and children alike, rotting human remains with the victims wrists tied, are described in the following news site along with very gruesome images. Note, the images are not for the faint of heart.
Evidence on Display at Israel’s Forensic Pathology Center Confirms Hamas’ Atrocities
Charred remains and a CT scan of the remains show a parent and child who were bound together and burned alive by Hamas terrorists on Oct. 7. Two spinal columns—one of an adult and one of a child—can be seen in the scan. The pair were likely embracing as they burned.
https://themedialine.org/top-stories/evidence-on-display-at-israels-forensic-pathology-center-confirms-hamas-atrocities/
An Israeli explains the shame if Western universities and their tolerance, even approval, of violence.
I have a problem with the both sideism of this article. Trump was undoubtedly reckless with his speech, but he stayed within the bounds of the law contesting the election and he did not use the government to go after his political enemies. Progressives have pushed the boundaries of the law and gone after their political enemies, using the near unlimited resources of the government.
Progressive in government need to be brought to heel and obey the law and the constitution. The first amendment (the right to free speech , exercise of religion , and to petition your government) applies to everyone. Government can’t investigate people you disagree with like Catholics, like Parents, like Trump supporters, etc.
There is one side weaponizing the government
AGREE. Writing an Article about the dangers of ridiculing & dismissing the Constitution, while doing so yourself within said Article because your reasons are special & justified, is precisely how this problem got created! – “Rules for thee, but not for me!” – – – Et tu, Jonathan?
How is Jonathan ridiculing the constitution?
So is Donald Trump being prosecuted because he’s running for the Republican nomination?
he is being charged because Hillary lost to a black man and a TV host. She has nothing to contribute to America that anyone seeks, so it follows she will exact revenge, destroy and Arkancide Trump and his followers.
Silly question.
TL;DR: ask Clinton enemies what happens to them
Have you ever applied for mortgage? When you started the process did the bank ask about the value of the house? Was the value you gave, the same or lower as the value given by the bank appraiser? Last time I refinanced, I used the value on Zillow which was a little high (about $50,000). Good thing I don’t live New York.
The question is now, as America presently exists is it worth defending?
You’d better believe it. If the dems/progressives hold onto power next year, that’s it, we are done. We are absolutely dealing with totalitarian forces in the West again not seen since WWII, and they are pretty much *exclusively* on the left; rational discourse is not going to work with them. Not supporting abortion is a far cry from their credo of destroy, physically if necessary, anyone who opposes you. Our younger generations are not well, and they will happily lead us into hell if we do not wake up. Their handlers and mentors are happy to stand by and watch.
If the dems/progressives hold onto power next year, that’s it, we are done.
James, progressives figured out long ago how to expand the footprint of the federal bureaucracy with the appearance of constitutionality. The Democrats figured out they no longer needed to pretend to care about the appearance of constitutionality. As it stands right now, we are in a police state. And this regime may be slowed by silly things like law, principles, rights, courts, and elections, but they will not be stopped.
@Olly
I don’t disagree. BUT.
The thing that seems to be lost on thinking and conscientious people is that the rule of law does not matter to these people; in the case of younger generations they don’t even know what the rule of law is, and the more our federal institutions are allowed to be weaponized – it isn’t going to matter to anyone, and the behavior will have zero repercussions attached. I would argue that we are already in a near intractable position, at the least it will require generations to sort out, the damage that has been done in less than ten years, and that is just where we are, there is no denying it, only attempts to reverse it with the best of intentions, and I do not personally think the right is doing a particularly good job of it. No one seems to realize precisely what is at sake. The time for the petty advancement of personal ideology is over, dead and gone. Grieve if you must, but let it go. there will never be in this country another time that the stereotypical Conservative is the majority. Deal with it, and then deal with what we are facing, because you are just as big an ideologue as anyone else. Never, ever, going to happen again, not in any country.
And to repeat myself: the rule of law does not figure into the picture. None of the people in question even consider that, and again, to beat a dead horse, the people in power are fine with that, they know that at least currently, they pull the strings, and they will not hold anyone to any particular standard if it serves them. Make of that what you will. This is not a conversation over a good whiskey in a bar because we all have equity and can still afford groceries, we are literally talking freedom vs. tyranny IMO. A great number of us need to get out of their bubbles. If a person fits any of these descriptions – those tiny changes that you have recently noticed in your hometown are only going to get bigger, and bigger, and bigger until you can’t ignore them anymore and likely have a great deal less leverage. Modern Liberals have a particular, almost seemingly God given blindness to this, it is like a bullet proof vest with them. I have, as an independent, always thought by and large they were arrogant, privileged aholes, and that has not changed. Quote salient wisdom all you like; it will not have even the tiniest impact.
All I can say about the ministrations on this site is: Good luck. Because the ‘others’ honestly don’t give a sheet, and they are eventually going to outnumber us all. And we raised them. If we have it within us, and I honestly don’t think most of us who still argue about the validity of Star Wars movies and name their kids after Superman do, then where are we? Grow up. We are past the point of trophies, we are on the brink of the ultimate, worldwide nastiness. Ad nobody, on either side, has the courage to talk about it honestly. ALL of you need to grow up. nobody gives a toss about your alma mater or how many memorized platitudes you can spit out. That is not going to solve this, and the right are currently more guilty of this than anyone. Stop your very expensive regurgitation and stop presuming anyone who isn’t you is an uneducated plebe. it might very well be that we see more than you can from your steeple, and that what you thought was truth is actually just mold.
The Federal Government has limited enumerated powers. Spending money on education is not one of those powers.
Alexis de Tocqueville, Observed the United States Constitutional Government was a grand system of govt….But he observed, ‘it will only last until the people realize they are being bribed with their own money.’
Washington DC has been picking and choosing what parts of the constitution it wants to abide by, and which parts they will go to any lengths to ignore, for well over 100 years
I have pointed out here, the gag orders placed on Trump are very much on violation of the word and intent of the Constitution. The Bill of Rights as a whole is to protect the people from the unlimited power of the Federal Govt. A Judge, ignoring the Constitution to silence a political candidate is the very essence of a Federal Govt abusing its power, and interfering in elections.
SCOTUS has ruled that in some circumstances, gag orders are Constitutional. Don’t like it? You’ll have to get them to reconsider or pass an amendment, because our Constitution makes them the arbiter.
exceptions indeed.
Never before has an unaccountable judge silenced a candidate running for office. The Coinstitution, with the BoR protects the people from the govt. The self important judge ignored a simple core Constitutional tenet, to advance the governments power. At the expense of civil rights enumerated in the Constitution.
You can parse that all you want. But even you know I’m right.
The Constitution, with the BoR protects the people from the govt.
iowan, unfortunately they do not. What we effectively have now is a constitution reform system like bail reform. Our government can violate the constitution, violate rights without consequence to the violator. The last line from Madison below seems rather naïve in hindsight.
James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, October 17, 1788:
What use then it may be asked can a bill of rights serve in popular Governments? I answer the two following which though less essential than in other Governments, sufficiently recommend the precaution. 1. The political truths declared in that solemn manner acquire by degrees the character of fundamental maxims of free Government, and as they become incorporated with the national sentiment, counteract the impulses of interest and passion. 2. Altho’ it be generally true as above stated that the danger of oppression lies in the interested majorities of the people rather than in usurped acts of the Government, yet there may be occasions on which the evil may spring from the latter sources; and on such, a bill of rights will be a good ground for an appeal to the sense of the community. Perhaps too there may be a certain degree of danger, that a succession of artful and ambitious rulers, may by gradual & well-timed advances, finally erect an independent Government on the subversion of liberty. Should this danger exist at all, it is prudent to guard agst. it, especially when the precaution can do no injury. At the same time I must own that I see no tendency in our governments to danger on that side.
I don’t think so. All of it sounds correct, after all they hadn’t leapt over nearly every Constitutional Principle at that time, and the last sentence he is merely stating he knows of nothing right then that needs immediate attention.
1. Having the bill of rights thwarts attempts against taking rights away since the people hear about it and the general mindset thus protects against problems.
2. The government might go evil, so BoR is a good shield against that.
3. The government could slowly go to the dark side over time (HE GOT THAT RIGHT). In humility unable to predict the future, and so as not to slap everyone in government in the face, he posits if it exists, why then we should guard against it because it is not a problem to do so. He winds up last sentence assessing the current government structures and declares then not out of control building evil step by step.
Nothing wrong with it at all. It isn’t naive, it is tactical and correct. A great argument. This could happen so we must prudently guard against it, so let’s make sure we do. It isn’t you gov guys I see doing it right now, but there is a long future ahead.
That’s how you get it done without a great insult to those who would help make sure it gets done.
Shakdi, the one thing the Framer’s understood from their study of history are the tendencies of government. In one breath Madison warns to guard against a governments gradual encroachment on our liberty, and then he states he doesn’t currently see that tendency. I don’t know if Madison was attempting to persuade Jefferson on this new form, but that last sentence seems to be an attempt to calm concerns. It is still the best form of government. But it has proven to be no match against man’s sinful nature.
This was my comment.
@iowan2
Very respectfully, those enumerated powers, indeed, law itself, doesn’t matter one whit if there is a large enough group tossing it all aside, whether out of ignorance or mendacity, and we are right on the precipice of that. All of our Constitutional talk and expectations of law could very well go right out the window, and rather quickly. We all really need to understand how dire this could be for everyone, and at the moment at least, that appears to be where we are heading. The people that are the problem simply do not care, not one iota. What we discuss here is irrelevant and not even a consideration, and they are being enabled to suffer zero consequences. To truly grasp the depths of the insanity – one has got to understand that folks like Antifa or the American socialist party really do think they are fighting the good fight, down to their core.
Very respectfully, those enumerated powers, indeed, law itself, doesn’t matter one whit if there is a large enough group tossing it all aside
James, that’s the power of the Constitution. It is insulated from popular opinion. Or, supposed to be.
This goes back the FDR. He had all sorts of ideas to get out to the Depression. But SCOTUS kept enforcing the Constitution, because the federal government lacked the enumerated power to act, as FDR wanted to act. So, FDR said, he would just pack the court with lawyers that had promised to ignore the constitution. And the rest, as the say, is history. FDR breaking brand new unconstitutional ground with SCOTUS Judges, ignoring the the constitution.
We have been trying to attempt to wash away that stink of FDR ever since.
The first thing I take exception to is your referring to our government as a democracy. It is not. It is supposed to be a constitutional republic. You should certainly know that there is a Hugh difference between the two.
The second objection to your article is blaming the current disfunction on the Constitution. The real problem facing this country is the people in power. This started over 100 years ago with the creation of the Federal Reserve and has continued to the present by both parties doing what ever they want to increase the power of the Federal Government. 90% of the Fedral government is unconstitutional. If the Federal Government were still adhering to the Constitution there would be far fewer problems.
I do agree with you that violence is being viewed as a solution by both right and left. Sadly I believe that there is a civil war coming and whatever the outcome the United States will never have freedom again. We are following in the steps of Rome.
Our government is both a representative democracy AND a constitutional federal republic.
That is CRAP. We are not a democracy, and you can’t just usurp our republican form of government and babble out a new definition that really cannot be applied except by lying… which is what is being done so the demoncrats make it sound like their party name is actually the USA, which it is not.
In a democracy all your rights can be legally stripped from you. THUS WE ARE NOT A DEMOCRACY AT ALL.
See this top google result LIE to itself and us…. they can’t explain their contortion and contradict themselves in their first line.
https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936
This CRAP was done to use word power and mind control on the masses to loft the demoncratcommie line.
The civil war is not coming, it is here, going on right now.
I agree with the constant democracy refrain critique. Take this example, googles top result, and see how they contradict themselves constantly trying to claim we are a democracy, just not a pure democracy – it is RIDICULOUS and it is a LIE even according to their own claims.
“Updated on June 10, 2022
Republics and democracies both provide a political system in which citizens are represented by elected officials who are sworn to protect their interests.
In a pure democracy, laws are made directly by the voting majority leaving the rights of the minority largely unprotected.
In a republic, laws are made by representatives chosen by the people and must comply with a constitution that specifically protects the rights of the minority from the will of the majority.
The United States, while basically a republic, is best described as a “representative democracy.”
(LMAO – So there is no difference EXCEPT in a democracy all your rights can be taken away by the majority)
In a republic, an official set of fundamental laws, like the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, prohibits the government from limiting or taking away certain “inalienable” rights of the people, even if that government was freely chosen by a majority of the people. In a pure democracy, the voting majority has almost limitless power over the minority.
(ONCE AGAIN THAT MEANS WE ARE A PURE REPUBLIC AND NOT A DEMOCRACY AT ALL.)
The United States, like most modern nations, is neither a pure republic nor a pure democracy. Instead, it is a hybrid democratic republic.
(THEY HAVE PROVIDED FACTS THAT PROVE IT A PURE REPUBLIC AND NOT A DEMOCRACY AT ALL)
The main difference between a democracy and a republic is the extent to which the people control the process of making laws under each form of government.
(IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEMONCRATS HAVE REDEFINED THIS SO THEY CAN MAKE WORD SOUNDS LIKE THEIR PARTY NAME, DEMONCRAT, DEMOCRACY, DEMONCRAT ,DEMOCRACY)
Republic, Republican party
As we see, the demoncrats destroy the US and the Constitution and rights, and the republicans do not. I AM SO SICK OF THIS LIE AND YOU ARE CORRECT JT BLABBERS IT OUT.
https://www.thoughtco.com/republic-vs-democracy-4169936
The rest of your critiques against JT are unfounded, he covers all of that exactly as you say it is. He hasn’t blamed the Constitution at all in his article.
His article attacks demoncrats 100% for blowing it, while including the recent throw away Trump line.