Constitutional Reason To Vote For Trump...
Aug 26, 2016 19:40:57 #
Don G. Dinsdale
Loc: El Cajon, CA (San Diego County)
KNOX GUN-RIGHTS REPORT
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REASON TO VOTE TRUMP
Jeff Knox: With Skeptical Republican Lawmakers, President Would Be On Short Leash
World Net Daily- Aug 25, 2016
Republicans who say they “just can’t endorse Donald Trump for president” are being foolish. Certainly, there are valid reasons to be concerned about Trump’s candidacy, but those concerns should pale against the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency. While Trump is a bit of a wild card, his non-politician straight talk has struck a chord with a broad segment of the American people who are fed up with political correctness and wheedling doublespeak.
As president, Trump would face a strong system of checks and balances, just as the framers envisioned. Skeptical Republican politicians should express their faith in this constitutional system as a reason for voters to not only elect Trump, but as a reason to vote for skeptical Republicans. They should be positioning themselves as the “loyal opposition,” ready to work with Trump to accomplish the good of his agenda, while providing a thoughtful check against rogue actions. Skeptics can run as watchdogs, taking a position of strong support for Trump as someone they can work with to accomplish what Americans want and need, while not blindly taking orders, as some Republicans might, nor rejecting Trump’s proposals out of hand, as Democrats will do. Thoughtful Republicans must position themselves as the gatekeepers who will support the good, oppose the bad and help Donald Trump make America great again.
Most Americans are familiar with the famous quote form Lord Acton; “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is an accepted truism, and it was recognized as such long before Acton penned his famous quote. The founders of the United States understood this truth and designed the new American government to be based on individual liberties, protected by laws and limits on government power, and guarded by thee separate and co-equal branches. At every level there are checks and balances designed to prevent any one person or group from wielding so much power that they can commit crimes without being held accountable for their actions. This begins with the establishment of clear limits to government power in the Constitution and ends with guarantees of a free press, the rights to petition and assembly, and for the gravest extreme, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The alternative is a Hillary Clinton presidency with Republicans serving as little more than speed bumps in the way of her agenda. Republicans divided and in disarray would have little hope against a strong and united Democratic Party and Congress. Hillary Clinton in the White House, Congress dominated by Democrats and RINOs and a “liberal” majority in the Supreme Court, along with a fawning liberal media, would be a freight train of ever-expanding government and centralized control, with little in the way of obstacles to check their “progress.”
Even though the Democratic Party offended some of its most “progressive” members with their manipulation of the primary election, the party itself has united strongly behind Hillary Clinton. Every Democrat in Congress will follow the marching orders Clinton issues, and unless Republicans stop their infighting and undermining of the Trump campaign, those Clinton Democrats are likely to be in the majority in at least one, if not both houses of Congress.
Can you imagine Hillary Clinton as president, with Chuck Schumer as the Senate majority leader and Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House? The media have demonstrated their unwavering support for Clinton, and her appointment to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court will remove the last vestige of checks and balances that might obstruct her agenda.
Our system is supposed to be designed so that the courts check Congress and the president, Congress checks the courts and the president, the president checks Congress and the courts, and the free press acts as a check on all of them. And this all happens within the constructs and protections of the Constitution and the laws of the land – ideally with the best interest of the nation and the people at heart.
The problem is that in spite of all of the protestations to the contrary, many people in “public service” are much more concerned with their own fortunes, personal power and ideologies than they are with protecting individual liberty and our nation’s founding principles.
Much has been said about Donald Trump dividing the Republican Party, but little has been said about what effect that division would have on a Trump presidency. In reality Trump’s nomination was a result of existing divisions within the Republican Party, not a cause of them. More importantly though, as president, Trump would not only have to overcome or override objections from Democrats in Congress, he would have to overcome resistance and objections from members of his own party – not to mention challenges in the courts, where even naming a replacement for Scalia would only keep the high court relatively “moderate” at best.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, enjoys united support among party leaders and members of Congress. She and her husband have proven themselves to be self-serving masters of political manipulation, willing to blatantly lie to promote themselves and avoid consequences for their actions. If she wins the presidency, it is also quite likely that Democrats will also win a majority in the Senate, and possibly the House. Her pick to fill the current opening on the Supreme Court would mean a solid five-vote, “liberal” majority on the court along with domination in Congress.
In other words, if Donald Trump is elected president, he will be on a short leash and have to fight for his agenda, while Hillary Clinton would be unfettered, with very little in the way of checks and balances. A Trump presidency would be a four-year long battle with occasional, carefully worked out victories. A Hillary presidency would be an unrestricted dictatorship, which unquestionably would be absolutely corrupt.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/the-constitutional-reason-to-vote-trump/#VUwakow5G0cR0BzG.99
THE CONSTITUTIONAL REASON TO VOTE TRUMP
Jeff Knox: With Skeptical Republican Lawmakers, President Would Be On Short Leash
World Net Daily- Aug 25, 2016
Republicans who say they “just can’t endorse Donald Trump for president” are being foolish. Certainly, there are valid reasons to be concerned about Trump’s candidacy, but those concerns should pale against the thought of a Hillary Clinton presidency. While Trump is a bit of a wild card, his non-politician straight talk has struck a chord with a broad segment of the American people who are fed up with political correctness and wheedling doublespeak.
As president, Trump would face a strong system of checks and balances, just as the framers envisioned. Skeptical Republican politicians should express their faith in this constitutional system as a reason for voters to not only elect Trump, but as a reason to vote for skeptical Republicans. They should be positioning themselves as the “loyal opposition,” ready to work with Trump to accomplish the good of his agenda, while providing a thoughtful check against rogue actions. Skeptics can run as watchdogs, taking a position of strong support for Trump as someone they can work with to accomplish what Americans want and need, while not blindly taking orders, as some Republicans might, nor rejecting Trump’s proposals out of hand, as Democrats will do. Thoughtful Republicans must position themselves as the gatekeepers who will support the good, oppose the bad and help Donald Trump make America great again.
Most Americans are familiar with the famous quote form Lord Acton; “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” It is an accepted truism, and it was recognized as such long before Acton penned his famous quote. The founders of the United States understood this truth and designed the new American government to be based on individual liberties, protected by laws and limits on government power, and guarded by thee separate and co-equal branches. At every level there are checks and balances designed to prevent any one person or group from wielding so much power that they can commit crimes without being held accountable for their actions. This begins with the establishment of clear limits to government power in the Constitution and ends with guarantees of a free press, the rights to petition and assembly, and for the gravest extreme, the right of the people to keep and bear arms.The alternative is a Hillary Clinton presidency with Republicans serving as little more than speed bumps in the way of her agenda. Republicans divided and in disarray would have little hope against a strong and united Democratic Party and Congress. Hillary Clinton in the White House, Congress dominated by Democrats and RINOs and a “liberal” majority in the Supreme Court, along with a fawning liberal media, would be a freight train of ever-expanding government and centralized control, with little in the way of obstacles to check their “progress.”
Even though the Democratic Party offended some of its most “progressive” members with their manipulation of the primary election, the party itself has united strongly behind Hillary Clinton. Every Democrat in Congress will follow the marching orders Clinton issues, and unless Republicans stop their infighting and undermining of the Trump campaign, those Clinton Democrats are likely to be in the majority in at least one, if not both houses of Congress.
Can you imagine Hillary Clinton as president, with Chuck Schumer as the Senate majority leader and Nancy Pelosi as speaker of the House? The media have demonstrated their unwavering support for Clinton, and her appointment to fill the vacant seat on the Supreme Court will remove the last vestige of checks and balances that might obstruct her agenda.
Our system is supposed to be designed so that the courts check Congress and the president, Congress checks the courts and the president, the president checks Congress and the courts, and the free press acts as a check on all of them. And this all happens within the constructs and protections of the Constitution and the laws of the land – ideally with the best interest of the nation and the people at heart.
The problem is that in spite of all of the protestations to the contrary, many people in “public service” are much more concerned with their own fortunes, personal power and ideologies than they are with protecting individual liberty and our nation’s founding principles.
Much has been said about Donald Trump dividing the Republican Party, but little has been said about what effect that division would have on a Trump presidency. In reality Trump’s nomination was a result of existing divisions within the Republican Party, not a cause of them. More importantly though, as president, Trump would not only have to overcome or override objections from Democrats in Congress, he would have to overcome resistance and objections from members of his own party – not to mention challenges in the courts, where even naming a replacement for Scalia would only keep the high court relatively “moderate” at best.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, enjoys united support among party leaders and members of Congress. She and her husband have proven themselves to be self-serving masters of political manipulation, willing to blatantly lie to promote themselves and avoid consequences for their actions. If she wins the presidency, it is also quite likely that Democrats will also win a majority in the Senate, and possibly the House. Her pick to fill the current opening on the Supreme Court would mean a solid five-vote, “liberal” majority on the court along with domination in Congress.
In other words, if Donald Trump is elected president, he will be on a short leash and have to fight for his agenda, while Hillary Clinton would be unfettered, with very little in the way of checks and balances. A Trump presidency would be a four-year long battle with occasional, carefully worked out victories. A Hillary presidency would be an unrestricted dictatorship, which unquestionably would be absolutely corrupt.
http://www.wnd.com/2016/08/the-constitutional-reason-to-vote-trump/#VUwakow5G0cR0BzG.99
Aug 26, 2016 20:33:45 #
Aug 27, 2016 07:52:08 #
Aug 31, 2016 20:35:30 #
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.