I've dedicated this page to helping wake up America. You'll find lots of topics here of interest to American Patriots who wish to defend the Constitution completely and want to see America thrive the right way. We're bitter clingers who support limited government, support our military and veterans, don't mind waving Old Glory, and telling you we love the USA. Are you with us?
Feinstein began by noting she was “deeply disappointed” that Obama’s choice for the Supreme Court, Merrick Garland, did not get the luxury of a hearing. Nevertheless, she said it is now the committee’s job to determine whether Gorsuch is a “reasonable mainstream conservative” fit for the highest court in the land.
She did not seem to have much confidence in the nominee. Feinstein is disturbed by Gorsuch’s originalism, she argued, because she believes the concept “ignores the intent of the framers.”
“It’s a framework on which to build,” she said. “I firmly believe the Constitution is a living document that evolves as our country evolves.”
She obviously has a different idea of what the framers intended. I don’t believe the framers meant for it to be a “living document.” I believe they meant for it to limit the powers of the government to benefit the people. That’s why it is so difficult to amend and change. If they wanted it to “evolve,” they would have said so and made changing it much easier.
Lately, we have been hearing from a lot of news sources that lean both right and left about enacting the 25th Amendment. There have been a lot of threats about it from the left who still can’t seem to grasp that they lost an election, the president is doing what he said he would do, and he isn’t taking crap from the media. Apparently, that makes him 25th Amendment worthy crazy.
This is what they are talking about:
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Basically, they’d have to get a majority and the VP on board. They can’t just say, “I think you’re nuts, I’m enacting the 25th Amendment.” They have to get enough folks – and the VP – on board to do so, and after that, he would be evaluated by a doctor, most likely cleared, and would be back in office. Even if he wasn’t cleared, Pence would be president.
Look. Is Trump a narcissist? I haven’t the faintest idea… I’m not a frickin’ doctor. And neither are any of these people. Just like doing away with the electoral college, it isn’t as easy as saying you are going to do it and then signing some paperwork. It’s a process. And one that would likely fail.
To put it bluntly, this is another item in a long line of long shots that the dems want to go for to get Trump out of office. It happens constantly. It happened with Obama. People were still trying to get Obama impeached the day before he left office. It’s nothing new. It may be getting more coverage, and there may be more public talk of it in the actual political class, but it doesn’t change that fact that it is 99.9% unlikely to go anywhere. It gets their base all fired up and excited thinking THIS TIME! But that’s what it always does, and nothing more.
The best defense? Just stop giving attention to this basic jackassery and stick with reality. As I’ve always said, there is enough going on in the world to focus on that we don’t need this junk on top of it.
Maryland’s ban on 45 kinds of assault weapons and its 10-round limit on gun magazines were upheld Tuesday by a federal appeals court in a decision that met with a strongly worded dissent.
In a 10-4 ruling, the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Virginia, said the guns banned under Maryland’s law aren’t protected by the Second Amendment.
“Put simply, we have no power to extend Second Amendment protections to weapons of war,” Judge Robert King wrote for the court, adding that the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly excluded such coverage.
Maryland Attorney General Brian Frosh, who led the push for the law in 2013 as a state senator, said it’s “unthinkable that these weapons of war, weapons that caused the carnage in Newtown and in other communities across the country, would be protected by the Second Amendment.”
“It’s a very strong opinion, and it has national significance, both because it’s en-banc and for the strength of its decision,” Frosh said, noting that all of the court’s judges participated.
Judge William Traxler issued a dissent. By concluding the Second Amendment doesn’t even apply, Traxler wrote, the majority “has gone to greater lengths than any other court to eviscerate the constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms.” He also wrote that the court did not apply a strict enough review on the constitutionality of the law.
“For a law-abiding citizen who, for whatever reason, chooses to protect his home with a semi-automatic rifle instead of a semi-automatic handgun, Maryland’s law clearly imposes a significant burden on the exercise of the right to arm oneself at home, and it should at least be subject to strict scrutiny review before it is allowed to stand,” Traxler wrote.
Jokes aside, this is serious stuff. I see a lot of people talking about the term “assault weapon,” and that’s all well and good, but the ban actually lists the guns, so the argument that it doesn’t apply to your gun because it is a “modern sporting rifle” isn’t accurate.
The Heller case (which this ruling blatantly disregards and violates, although they argue it does not) did make reference to the right to guns in popular use at the time, which these rifles do fall under, but not according to the court. These rifles would also not be seen as adequate arms to send overseas with our troops, making them not “weapons of war,” but again, not according to this court.
This opens up the flood gates to bans that are wholly unconstitutional, regardless of what this court says.
And it opens a lot of other problems as well. After all, if the 2nd amendment only protects guns that were available and in popular use at the time of writing, one could argue the other amendments are also null and void. If this stands, one could argue that you could, in fact, be arrested for writing something on the internet with your smart phone that the government doesn’t like. After all, if one amendment only covers things at time of writing, why would another include modern technology? And while that is a “joke” that gets passed around, a lawyer could push it in court. And I hate to say… that lawyer could win. Again, if one covers modern technology, they all must. If one doesn’t cover modern technology, none of them can.
So while the anti-gunners rejoice, the flood gates may have just been opened.
And, as with everyone else crying about the electoral college, if the tables had been turned, would she still support changing it?
Let’s say Donald Trump had taken the popular vote, but Hillary won the election. Would she be telling us about how she’d like to change the electoral college? Would any of these people be saying that? Would these states trying to change their laws unconstitutionally to force electors to vote with the country instead of the state be doing that?
If you’re scratching your head, then you need to pay more attention. The answer would be no. They’d be touting the electoral college as genius. Because that’s how they do things.
U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and U.S. Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-Fla.) today proposed an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to impose term limits on members of Congress. The amendment would limit U.S. senators to two six-year terms and members of the U.S. House of Representatives to three two-year terms.
“D.C. is broken,” said Sen. Cruz. “The American people resoundingly agreed on Election Day, and President-elect Donald Trump has committed to putting government back to work for the American people. It is well past time to put an end to the cronyism and deceit that has transformed Washington into a graveyard of good intentions.”
Cruz continued: “The time is now for Congress, with the overwhelming support of the American people, to submit this constitutional amendment to the states for speedy ratification. With control of a decisive majority of the states, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, we have a responsibility to answer the voters’ call-to-action. We must deliver.”
“Term limits are the first step towards reforming Capitol Hill,” said Rep. DeSantis. “Eliminating the political elite and infusing Washington with new blood will restore the citizen legislature that our Founding Fathers envisioned. The American people have called for increased accountability and we must deliver. Senator Cruz has been instrumental in efforts to hold Congress accountable, and I look forward to working with him to implement term limits.”
Complete text of the proposed amendment can be viewed here.
Durbin is hoping to get more states on board with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which needs enough participating states to equal 270 electoral votes to go into effect. It works around the electoral college by using the state’s right to select electors however they choose.
Illinois, California, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington have signed on to the compact, representing 165 electoral votes.
“Twice in recent memory, a majority of American voters cast their vote for the losing presidential candidate. This is certainly not what the Founders intended. It’s time to retire this 18th century invention that disenfranchises millions of Americans,” Durbin said in a statement Wednesday. “The American people deserve to choose all of their leaders, and I will continue to support efforts to empower voters.”
“We face an uphill battle in Congress, but states have the power to act now by adopting the Compact and committing their electors to the candidate chosen by the voters.”
Amending the Constitution to scrap the electoral college would require the support of three-quarters of state legislatures and two-thirds of the House and Senate.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact “would be an end run around the electoral college as opposed to abolishing it,” Pepperdine University law professor Derek Muller told PolitiFact. “There are still 538 electors who are still going to meet late December — the electoral college still exists — but it would be operating in a very different way.”
Frustrated after seeing another candidate secure the presidency without winning the national popular vote, mostly Democratic lawmakers in several capitols want their states to join a 10-year-old movement to work around the Electoral College.
In states including Connecticut, Pennsylvania, Ohio and New Mexico, legislators have said they plan to introduce legislation that would require their state’s Electoral College voters cast ballots for the presidential candidate who earns the most votes nationwide, regardless of the statewide results.
“Every vote in this country should have equal weight. The Electoral College is a relic of a bygone era, and we need to change this system,” said Connecticut state Sen. Mae Flexer, who filed a bill with several fellow Democrats requiring Connecticut to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
And those laws should be challenged in the Supreme Court, because they are completely unconstitutional. The states vote for the president, not the people. And the reason it is done that way is because every vote in this country should have equal weight!!!!!! If it wasn’t done this way, three states would decide the election for the entire country, and that isn’t bearing equal weight. Hell, it was already figured out that Hillary’s popular vote win came entirely from California. How fair is that?
This way of voting is actually written into the constitution, and if you want to change it, it is going to require an amendment. Period.
Ever notice this only becomes an issue when the democrat nominee isn’t the winner? If the tables had been turned, the electoral college would be praised by the left as pure genius.