Originalists Against Trump

[DGS49]

Originalists Against Trump

Folks, I am in a quandary.

I read the linked manifesto, and I simply cannot believe that a group of apparently brilliant people are so utterly, totally, obviously, and insidiously WRONG.

They purport to support the promotion of the Constitution, as originally understood, and implicitly fight the concept of the "living Constitution."

And yet, they support the election of a candidate who is manifestly opposed to the original Constitution, and who PROMISES to appoint people who are similarly ungrounded - constitutionally speaking.

They are concerned about DJT's authoritarian ramblings - and these are not deniable. But in context, Our Beloved President is the MOST authoritarian President in U.S. history! Imagine ANY President saying, "Congress refused to do what I wanted, so I was forced to do it myself [by Executive Orders and regulatory action]." Do they think that HRC will be any less authoritarian than BHO?

Ridiculous!

Most of the signers of this document are people I've never heard of before, but George Will? He seems to become unmoored in this election season. He is getting up there in years, maybe he is a victim of the Barry Goldwater Syndrome. I don't know.

Somebody tell me how this makes sense - how someone who claims to respect the original meaning of the Constitution can come out in favor of HRC. I just don't get it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Will's mind works just well. He opposed most of Bush's hair-brained imperialistic ventures. He is not afraid of saying exactly what he thinks.

He and his co-signers believe that Trump's authoritarian impulses far exceeds those of Trump.

 

[DGS49]

Jesus. Proof reader required.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Jesus. Proof reader required.

If that is your worry, trot along. The point is very clear and accurate.

 

[tyroneweaver]

Originalists Against Trump

Folks, I am in a quandary.

I read the linked manifesto, and I simply cannot believe that a group of apparently brilliant people are so utterly, totally, obviously, and insidiously WRONG.

They purport to support the promotion of the Constitution, as originally understood, and implicitly fight the concept of the "living Constitution."

And yet, they support the election of a candidate who is manifestly opposed to the original Constitution, and who PROMISES to appoint people who are similarly ungrounded - constitutionally speaking.

They are concerned about DJT's authoritarian ramblings - and these are not deniable. But in context, Our Beloved President is the MOST authoritarian President in U.S. history! Imagine ANY President saying, "Congress refused to do what I wanted, so I was forced to do it myself [by Executive Orders and regulatory action]." Do they think that HRC will be any less authoritarian than BHO?

Ridiculous!

Most of the signers of this document are people I've never heard of before, but George Will? He seems to become unmoored in this election season. He is getting up there in years, maybe he is a victim of the Barry Goldwater Syndrome. I don't know.

Somebody tell me how this makes sense - how someone who claims to respect the original meaning of the Constitution can come out in favor of HRC. I just don't get it.

George Will was that nut ball that said free agency is good for baseball.
Of course it is, if you're a Yankee fan like Will.
Small markets like Cincinnati never will be able to afford superstars.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Originalists Against Trump

Folks, I am in a quandary.

I read the linked manifesto, and I simply cannot believe that a group of apparently brilliant people are so utterly, totally, obviously, and insidiously WRONG.

They purport to support the promotion of the Constitution, as originally understood, and implicitly fight the concept of the "living Constitution."

And yet, they support the election of a candidate who is manifestly opposed to the original Constitution, and who PROMISES to appoint people who are similarly ungrounded - constitutionally speaking.

They are concerned about DJT's authoritarian ramblings - and these are not deniable. But in context, Our Beloved President is the MOST authoritarian President in U.S. history! Imagine ANY President saying, "Congress refused to do what I wanted, so I was forced to do it myself [by Executive Orders and regulatory action]." Do they think that HRC will be any less authoritarian than BHO?

Ridiculous!

Most of the signers of this document are people I've never heard of before, but George Will? He seems to become unmoored in this election season. He is getting up there in years, maybe he is a victim of the Barry Goldwater Syndrome. I don't know.

Somebody tell me how this makes sense - how someone who claims to respect the original meaning of the Constitution can come out in favor of HRC. I just don't get it.

Executive orders:

Reagan issued 380.

Obama has issued 260.

Go dig up Reagan and whine about he being the 'worst' in history.

This is also what has become the norm for Trump followers, anyone that the don't like even in the slightest is suddenly 'the worst ever in the history of the universe and all other possible universes in the past and future'. It is taking the concept of crying wolf to an extreme that even the real wolf would say 'holly f#%k those idiots are scared of their own shadow and dangerous, I'm not going near those nutjobs".

 

[JakeStarkey]

But they did get Ken Griffey Jr, then his legs went bad.

 

[DGS49]

Did any of Reagan's Executive Orders countermand the clear meaning of existing statutes?

Did any regulation passed during Reagan's term have the impact of the EPA classifying CO2 as a "hazardous pollutant" (which was done on Barry's instructions)?

Did Reagan conspire with his underlings to make major changes to recently passed laws (e.g., with ACA)?

There is no comparing Reagan with Obama. Reagan worked within the confines of the Constitution, and Obama schemes constantly to ignore both the Constitution and laws he doesn't like.

But that's not the point of this thread.

How can people who profess to be "Originalists" support HRC? It is unfathomable.

 

[emilynghiem]

Dear DGS49 Is this a Romney thing? Is this in response to Trump calling Romney a loser?

I don't think this is pro Hillary as it is a rebuke against Trump.

Had Clinton insulted a circle of friends around someone whose reputation had been attacked in public media, maybe this would have been written and focused against her.

Would you care to join with me in writing to this board? I'd love to get their opinions on the damage done to Freedmens Town history and the civil rights of residents destroyed by Democrats while Obama Clinton and other high ranking leaders do nothing but teach dependence on party instead of teaching Constitutional law and enforcement as empowering citizens to build and govern for themselves as the settlement of FT was established before Democrats destroyed it by abusing govt. Authority and resources for corporate and political gain at the expense of taxpayers who paid the cost of demolishing national history including Black churches and civil rights landmarks.

Let's compare their criticism of Trump with the Democratic Party and ask which is more dangerous to Constitutional enforcement ethics and equal protections of laws.

Thanks for posting the names.lets put them both on public trial, DJT vs TDP.