Why Do Conservatives Support Trump?

By: the Common Constitutionalist

One reason for Trump’s popularity is the “what have you done for me lately” effect. Over the years we’ve all been witness to and have even supported republican candidates who, when they started out, were conservative, went to Washington and within a term or two, moderated their views to the point where they just fold into the establishment wing. Hacks are not born – they are made.

This is why Trump didn’t get buried over the John McCain dust-up. McCain was a war hero and Reagan revolutionary. Now he’s a hack, and it’s how most voters see him. What has John done for us lately?

Heck, even some of the most rabid leftist democrats, started their national political careers far right of where they are now.

For example: Recall Harry Reid’s anti-illegal immigration floor speech that sounded a lot like The Donald, or Mark Levin, or me. In 1993 he even introduced a bill (title) to “clarify” the 14th Amendment.

Here is the Reid Title:

…the Congress has determined and hereby declares that any person born after the date of enactment of this title to a mother who is neither a citizen of the United States nor admitted to the United States as a lawful permanent resident, and which person is a national or citizen of another country of which either of his or her natural parents is a national or citizen, or is entitled upon application to become a national or citizen of such country, shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States within the meaning of [Section 1 of the 14th Amendment] and shall therefore not be a citizen of the United States or of any State solely by reason of physical presence within the United States at the moment of birth. S.1351, Sec.1001 

And son of a gun if Reid didn’t have it exactly right. I guess he really does know his Constitution – or did, when he wrote: “shall be considered as born subject to the jurisdiction of that foreign country and not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States…” read more

Who Knew Trump Was a Constitutional Scholar

by: the Common Constitutionalist

Yesterday I wrote an article regarding Donald Trump’s immigration platform, or more to the point, how to prevent illegal immigration and what to do with the ones who are already here. You may review it here.

In it I referenced The Donald’s now infamous retort to Chuck Todd claiming that by deported all illegals, Trump would be breaking up families and attempting to deport people with birthright citizenship. I quoted Trump telling Todd that he would keep the families together, “but they have to go.” I can’t remember a time when one statement has caused so much angst.

Robert Tracinski at The Federalist argues that deporting birthright citizens would be a direct assault on the Constitution and “the thousand year history of English common law.”

He says to do so, “requires precisely the sort of thing conservatives are supposed to be against.” He explains that at the time of the founding, America embraced birthright citizenship – that “for the Founders, rejecting jus soli or birthright citizenship would have meant either greatly restricting the growth and expansion of the new nation or, more likely, creating a system in which there was a large and growing sub-population of people who were disenfranchised in the land of their own birth. An idea totally incompatible with a government based on the consent of the governed.”

Tracinski then moves on to the 14th amendment, which is the centerpiece of the argument for birthright citizenship. The 14th amendment was the second post Civil War amendment and was written to bestow citizenship on the freed slaves.

Like Tracinski, I too argued that Trump couldn’t just deport “birthright citizens.” read more

Marriage in the Supreme Court

by: the Common Constitutionalist

However you feel regarding homosexual marriage, it is my contention that the United States Supreme Court has no business involving itself in such matters or in the state of Californias business.

Why does the Supreme Court feel the need to concern itself, or that the average american citizen believes it has that right? Answer: 4 liberal activist justices, which is coincidently the number needed to accept a case. States have their own rules, own constitution, their own courts and supreme courts as well as their own state judicial review.

The federal government, in my opinion, has absolutely no roll in or right to hear this case. This is a state issue. The U.S. supreme court should vacate the 9th circus court of appeals decision (as it does on a regular basis) as well as the federal district courts decision and declare that this is a matter for the state of California to decide, which it already has.

The state of California allows for popular referendum votes in order to amend the California constitution. The people of California overwhleming voted to amend their constitution via proposition 8, to state that marriage is between a man and a woman.  Because the politicians in California refused to uphold the legally binding California constitutional amendment, the left saw an opportunity to usurp the state constitution.  I’m not certain, but I would guess that the politicians in California took an oath to defend and protect the constitution of California. Frankly they should all be brought up on charges for failure to properly discharge their duties and removed from office. They have no right to pick and choose what they will and will not enforce.

Oh, by the way, a majority of blacks and hispanics voted in favor of proposition 8. Why are those in favor of overturning the amendment not called racists? Just asking.

What is the point in having states at all if they can’t run themselves? For that matter, why even have a state legislature, a governor, a congress, senate or president? If the United States Supreme Court is the end all and be all decision maker, why not just let them run the country? What is the point in Federalism; checks and balances.

These black robed gods are evidently infallible, except when they are. Throughout our history our supreme court has been comprised of human beings, not gods. Their have been drunks, womanizers, bigots, Klan members, etc., that sat on the bench. They are frankly as fallible as the rest of us and as Chief justice John Roberts recently demonstrated, they are just as prone to public (or some kind of) pressure as are we .

Here are just a few of the really poor decisions handed down by 9 black robed infallible gods:

Dred Scott v. Sandford 1857: All Americans of African descent were not citizens and would have no rights.

Plessy v. Ferguson 1896:   It protected racial discrimination in state laws under the “separate but equal” doctrine. It expressly upheld the right of states to force segregation upon others.

Home Building & Loan v. Blaisdell 1934: The Court created the Emergency Exceptions Doctrine, arguing that the Great Depression was so bad that government could interfere with private contracts.

 Wickard v. Filburn 1942: Roscoe Filburn was a farmer who grew wheat to feed to his livestock. The Court determined that Filburn’s self-sufficiency caused him to buy less wheat from outside suppliers. They decided this marginal impact was enough to subject him to federal regulation under the Commerce Clause

Korematsu v. U.S. 1944: Chief Justice Hugo Black wrote for the Court that the government’s need to protect itself from spies outweighed the civil rights of Fred Korematsu and other innocent Americans of Japanese ancestry allowing the internment of over 120,000 Japanese Americans during World War II.

 Bennis v. Michigan 1996: Tina Bennis and her husband owned a car, in which Tina’s husband engaged the services of a prostitute. The State of Michigan seized the car as a public nuisance. The Supreme Court determined that the government could take Tina Bennis’ property, without due process or appeal, even though she didn’t know that her property was being used this way.

Kelo v. New London 2005: the  High Court extended the governments ability to seize private property under eminent domain, even when the only public purpose was to enrich the city’s treasury.This decision afforded a government the right to take anyone’s private property if it feels that someone else can make better use of it.

As I said; this is not a case for the U.S. Supreme Court and is not a 14th Amendment issue if you know anything about the 14th Amendment. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution was ratified in 1868 specifically to demand that freed blacks, post Civil War, are citizens, period, and as such are afforded the same constitutional rights as whites. It has nothing at all to do with homosexual marriage or any other kind of marriage.

The Court should just say that this is a 10th Amendment issue and be done with it.

Does the 10th amendment, states rights, mean nothing anymore? I thought the left was all about diversity. Does not the 10th amendment tippify diversity?

As many in California have done for a number of reasons, those who do not accept California law are welcome to vote with their feet and move to a more amenable state. But, of course that is not the lefts way, is it.