Archive for the ‘The Constitution’ Category

Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel, and Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s personal attorney, made their first official impeachment filing this weekend. Immediately, they let it be known that they weren’t interested in taking prisoners on this particular battlefield.

They started their filing by saying “The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the 2016 election and to interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away.”

Next, they write “The Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.”

“In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the ‘new normal,’ and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.”

It’s worth reading the entire Trump team briefing. This team sought to send the message that there’s little, if anything, in the Articles of Impeachment that meets the Constitution’s requirements.

Cipollone and Sekulow note that House Democrats “sought testimony disclosing the Executive Branch’s confidential communications and internal decision-making processes on matters of foreign policy and national security, despite the well-established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information.” Then Mssrs. Cipollone and Sekulow write “As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security.”

Notwithstanding these abuses, the Administration replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects. Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court. To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling.

Why would House Democrats withdraw a legitimate subpoena if the information sought was important? Did House Democrats withdraw the subpoena because they didn’t want the court to rule that the subpoena wasn’t legitimate?

Check LFR for the House Democrats’ reply to this filing.

If you didn’t watch tonight’s Almanac Roundtable discussion, you’re in luck. I watched it so you didn’t have to. Predictably, impeachment was the main topic discussed by former DFL State Senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and former GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate Annette Meeks. My first impression of the discussion is that it’s painful to watch Ember Reichgott-Junge mix the Democrats’ political talking points with the Constitution.

At one point in the discussion, Junge trotted out the latest Democrat talking point. Junge said that “It isn’t just President Trump that is on trial. The US Senate is on trial, too.” She then posed a hypothetical question, saying “What happens if new information comes out 6 months from now?” Here’s what I’d say had I been debating her Friday night:

Ember, you’ve got it backwards. It isn’t the US Senate that’s on trial. It’s the US House that’s on trial. Specifically, it’s Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler that are on trial. They’re the people who were tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough impeachment investigation. If this was truly about patriotism, Speaker Pelosi would have stopped the investigation once she learned that Chairman Schiff’s committee didn’t unearth proof that President Trump committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

She didn’t stop the investigation because she wanted to use impeachment as a partisan weapon. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the morning after he won the election. This wasn’t an investigation. It was a search-and-destroy mission. That isn’t about finding the truth. That’s about crippling the President of the United States for purely partisan purposes.

Democrats who voted for impeachment aren’t as guilty as Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff but they’re guilty, too. They’re guilty of impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime. House Democrats voted to impeach a president without investigators identifying a single piece of direct proof that verifies the crime President Trump committed.

Prof. Jonathan Turley’s ‘indictment’ of the House Democrats still stings. In his testimony, Prof. Turley said “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

Honestly, it’s exceptionally dishonest to blame the US Senate for US House Democrats not finishing their investigation. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the sole responsibility for impeachment. If House Democrats don’t properly finish their investigation, then that’s their fault. Honest historians won’t criticize the US Senate for conducting a sloppy impeachment investigation.

Senate Democrats better think this through thoroughly. If Senate Democrats want to call witnesses, they’d best be prepared to get buried with fact witnesses by the defense attorneys. That means the trial lasts until well after Super Tuesday. By then, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar will have been forced to suspend their campaigns.

By the time an extended trial ends, President Trump will be well on his way to winning re-election, Republicans will be well on their way to regaining their House majority and well on their way to solidifying their majority in the Senate. That’s the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

When impeachment started, Nancy Pelosi insisted that she loved the Constitution. I suspect that she loves the Constitution like she loves the Bible. I suspect that she loves them when it’s to her advantage. Yesterday, the House voted on a resolution that ignored the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to declare war.

While it’s fitting for Congress to weigh in on policy matters, it isn’t fitting that the Legislative Branch should tell the Executive Branch what it should or shouldn’t do. Yesterday’s non-binding resolution told President Trump how Congress wanted to restrict him in prosecuting military operations. That’s far outside the Legislative Branch’s authority.

The military is 100% within the Executive Branch’s authority. They take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, not 100 egotistical senators, not from an aging Speaker of the House, not from anyone in the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch’s constitutional authority over the military is confined to declaring war (then getting out of the way) and appropriating money to fund the military.

Democrats insist that they love the Constitution. If that’s true, why don’t they appreciate it all the time? The Democrats’ “living, breathing document” line apparently means that they like it when it says what they want it to say but they’ll change it when they don’t like what it says.

This interview says everything:

Congress doesn’t have the authority to tell presidents how to prosecute war. The Constitution only gives them the authority to declare war. Declarations of war have nothing to do with prosecuting wars.

Speaker Pelosi might not like that but she can’t ignore that fact.

Despite what her Praetorian guard say, this hasn’t been a good week for the Swamp Mistress, aka Nancy Pelosi. It just got much worse. This morning, Ms. Pelosi decided that impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime without producing a single piece of proof that would be admitted in a court of law wasn’t enough. She’s decided that she’s taking the ‘full tyrant’ route by censoring House Republicans. Nothing says solemnity like a black dress and a week of censorship. Nothing says ‘I love the Constitution’ more than violating House Republicans’ First Amendment rights.

Under the current rules, members are allowed five minute speeches in the morning. The leadership on each side are allowed a full hour each at the end of the day and then each side is given two half hour slots. No floor speeches are allowed past 10 pm even if everyone has not had a chance to speak. In January, the House passed a rule that allows members only one Special Order speaking slot per week.

Pelosi not only shut down end-of-the-day special order speeches, on Thursday, she also cancelled the five minute speaking slots in the morning, effectively barring the Minority from speaking out against the biased and unfair impeachment process after the vote.

Saying that this has Louie Gohmert fired up is understatement:

According to the rules, the Minority is supposed to be allowed to have their own witness hearing before an impeachment vote, but Chairman Nadler (D-NY) denied them that right. Gohmert said that the majority could have voted to change the rules, but they didn’t even bother to do that much. They just straight-out violated the rules in their haste to impeach the president.

Gohmert also said he was going to point out the hypocrisy of Democrats who have been claiming that the rushed process was warranted because “time was of the essence.” If impeaching the president was such an urgent matter, why isn’t the Speaker sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Gohmert wanted to ask on the House floor.

Democrats don’t have an answer for Rep. Gohmert’s questions. That’s proof that the Democrats’ impeachment wasn’t fair, wasn’t thorough and didn’t meet the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment.

Rep. Gohmert was already fired up after this:

At times yesterday, Jerry Nadler tried needling Republicans. Mr. Nadler isn’t bright enough to win that fight. He got excoriated multiple times by Rep. Doug Collins, the Republicans’ floor manager yesterday, and by other Republicans, including Mr. Gohmert.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again. This wasn’t a fair fight despite the fact that the Democrats tilted the rules in their favor. Republicans proved themselves to be people of gravitas. Democrats proved themselves to be intellectual lightweights incapable of sustaining a coherent fight. Here’s one of the Republicans with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Alan Dershowitz’s latest article highlights an old phrase attributed to Stalin. According to the article, Stalin said “show me the man and I will find you the crime.” Appearing on America’s Newsroom, former Clinton Independent Counsel Ken Starr told this horrific story:

“The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it’s being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives,” Starr said. “But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn’t have a full debate on the floor of the House — and that just lends itself to, ‘then to let’s go to court and have this litigated.’ “And of course, the chairman then says, ‘you go to court, you’re in contempt.’

“For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt… is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best… to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness,” he said. “He’s already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty.”

This isn’t about fairness. It’s about hating the outcome of the 2016 election, then doing whatever it took to string up the guy who defeated the woman who was going to shatter that last glass ceiling. This isn’t an impeachment inquiry. It’s an inquisition:

an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners and recklessly cruel punishments.

Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee President Trump’s civil rights. Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee the civil rights of anyone who served on the NSC were protected. It’s impossible to highlight such a thing because Schiff isn’t interested in such things. He’s interested in making history even if it means destroying the nation.

The gospel of Dershowitz

Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

This isn’t a constitutional crisis. It’s the Constitution working the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton codified it to work. The first step is to let the political branches fight things out amongst themselves. The only time the courts should get involved is after the political branches have proven they can’t resolve their differences.

As Dershowitz has said, a dispute isn’t cause for voting on an article of impeachment. It’s cause for letting the Constitution function the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton intended it to work. The legislative branch doesn’t resolve disputes. The executive branch doesn’t resolve disputes. Only the judicial branch gets to resolve disputes between the political branches. If Schiff wasn’t in such a rush to impeach President Trump, he’d let the judiciary settle this dispute.

Notice the slap that Prof. Dershowitz gave Mr. Schiff. Prof. Dershowitz said “Schiff calls it a rope-a-dope. There’s another word for it. It’s called checks and balances.” Schiff’s political animus is so strong that he isn’t capable of controlling himself. When Nixon was all but officially impeached, Chairman Rodino put together this roadmap for the House to follow. There isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell that this roadmap will be considered, much less adopted. Adam Schiff won’t let this be considered. Nancy Pelosi is too partisan to let this become the law of the land.

Speaker Pelosi is spinning like a top after pulling a 180 on a formal impeachment vote. Pelosi insists that this isn’t an admission that Democrats have run an illegitimate investigation thus far. That spin doesn’t pass the laugh test, though. A complete 180 can’t be seen as anything except a reversal/admission.

Ms. Pelosi’s statement is filled with misleading statements. For instance, Ms. Pelosi’s statement says “the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins.” Technically, that’s right. Actually, it’s deceptive as hell. While it’s true that the Constitution doesn’t provide a checklist to be followed, there are constitutional principles that must be upheld.

One such constitutional principle that must be upheld is the principle of separation of powers. Congress has subpoena power but only in the context of fulfilling its legislative responsibilities. Their subpoena power disappears the minute it’s used for investigative purposes. The term used is “legislative purpose.” If the thing that’s getting subpoenaed isn’t being used to write legislation, then it’s an invalid use of subpoena power.

Further, the Constitution doesn’t permit people in the Legislative Branch to impanel a grand jury. Only people in the Executive Branch have the authority to impanel grand juries. Adam Schiff isn’t part of the Executive Branch.

Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be “an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority.”

That ruling is stupid. First, the Constitution says that “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” The courts have defined “The House” as being the entire House of Representatives, not just the Speaker. This isn’t insignificant. When Speaker Pelosi stated that the House was conducting an impeachment investigation, there wasn’t a vote of the whole House. It was just a declaration by Speaker Pelosi. Official votes are the only things recognized as official actions of the House and Senate. This statement is worthy of a snot-nosed little brat, not the Speaker of the House:

They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.

Until the Constitution’s requirements have been met, the impeachment inquiry doesn’t exist in the eyes of the courts. Who’s stupid enough to think that a court would think that an investigation whose rules change daily would pass muster on due process? An Obama-appointed airhead might buy that but that’s about it. Further, past precedent matters. The rules that governed the Nixon impeachment governed the Clinton impeachment, too. The ‘Rodino Rules’ weren’t adopted for President Trump. Why haven’t they? Are they too transparent for Schiff and Pelosi? Do Schiff, Pelosi and the Democrats realize the flimsiness of their case, which leads them to think that a secret investigation, filled with Schiff leaks, is the only chance they have at gaining an impeachment?

It’s interesting that the CNBC correspondent characterized this as a reversal by Speaker Pelosi. It isn’t interesting because I disagree. It’s interesting because I didn’t expect that from a media organization.

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed is must reading if you want to know the difference between the Democrats’ definition of impeachment and the Constitution’s definition of impeachment.

Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Republicans better get their act together on this. Democrats have declared war on President Trump and Republicans. Senate Republicans better prepare for warfare. They should opt to shut down the trial, if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment.

Here’s why: Nothing that President Trump has done comes close to meeting the constitutional test of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” In fact, President Trump hasn’t come close to committing a crime, much less a high crime. When Bill Clinton was impeached, a grand jury identified a series of felonies that he’d committed.

Let’s remember that, in the end, President Clinton paid Paula Jones a small ton of money and surrendered his law license in Arkansas. He wouldn’t have had to do those things if he hadn’t initially been indicted.

Mentioning Biden’s name and Biden’s son’s name in the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wasn’t the best thing to do but it doesn’t come close to a high crime. That isn’t just my opinion. That’s Alan Dershowitz’s opinion, too.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

I wrote about this recently because I’m convinced that governments shouldn’t be overthrown for “light and transient causes” any more than presidents should be impeached for light and transient causes. This isn’t a joke. This is serious stuff.

If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds, it is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate. Biden isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Vice President Biden shouldn’t get that get-out-of-jail-free card because nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents. This video sums things up nicely:

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings and paid $83,000 a month for 5 years. What’s worse is that he didn’t have any expertise in the energy industry or in the Ukraine. Then, when investigators started checking out potential corruption, Vice President Biden threatened to pull $1,000,000,000 in loan guarantees from Burisma if Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, wasn’t fired.

Impeachment is a political act because it involves the political branches of government. That being said, it also uses judicial principles if done properly. If articles of impeachment are passed on a straight party-line vote, Republicans should essentially throw the case out for not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment.

Thursday night’s debate showed just how much contempt Democrat presidential candidates have for the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Kamala Harris said that she’d issue an executive order to confiscate (my word, not hers) AR-15s and AK-47s if Congress didn’t act on banning assault weapons. I quoted from the DC v. Heller case in this post why she’d get slammed 9-0 in the Supreme Court:

Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. 3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

The Supreme Court has ruled that guns that are in common use are beyond Congress because they’re protected by the Second Amendment. Period.

Harris isn’t the only Democrat that thinks they’re above the Constitution. Robert Francis O’Rourke, the rich brat from El Paso, went on this tirade during the debate:

O’Rourke himself is just a punk who won’t be president. With that tirade, he took himself out of the running for being a serious challenger to Sen. Cornyn, too. That’s why I couldn’t care less about Robert Francis. What I’m bothered about was the applause he received from the audience at the Democrats’ debate in Houston. Those idiots are our neighbors, co-workers and friends.

This is what happens when our schools don’t emphasize civics in the classroom. Increasingly, our society thinks that they’re beyond the law and the Constitution. Chief of those that think that way is AOC. Harris apparently thinks that she can ignore the Constitution, too:

Harris responded, “I would just say, hey, Joe, instead of saying, no, we can’t, let’s say, yes, we can. And yes, we can. Because I’ll tell you something, the way that I think about this is, I’ve seen more autopsy photographs than I care to tell you. I have attended more police officer funerals than I care to tell you. I have hugged more mothers of homicide victims than I care to tell you. And the idea that we would wait for this Congress, which has just done nothing, to act, is just — it is overlooking the fact that every day in America, our babies are going to school to have drills.”

To Sen. Harris: I’ve read the Bill of Rights. It trumps the autopsy pictures that Sen. Harris has seen. It trumps the attempt to play on victims’ emotions, too.

Perhaps it’s just me but Sen. Harris sounded like she was high when she said “Hey, Joe, instead of saying ‘no, we can’t,’ let’s say ‘yes, we can.’ That laughter made her sound like she was high.

Whether Sen. Harris was high or not, she’s definitely wrong on the Constitution.

I felt sick reading John Hinderaker’s article, partially because of the violence visited upon the young man in the video but mostly because it’s just a matter of time before that sort of thing hits St. Cloud.

Forgive my pessimism. I’m usually an optimist. After watching St. Cloud deteriorate the last 5 years, it’s difficult to maintain a positive attitude. Next Wednesday, St. Cloud’s Police Chief will participate in a propagandist’s dream event to tell everyone just how wonderful St. Cloud would be if it wasn’t for those awful hate-filled Christians antagonizing those pure-as-the-driven-snow CAIR activists.

People are leaving St. Cloud. Some are moving to southern states but most are leaving for Sartell, Sauk Rapids St. Augusta and St. Joe. They’re leaving because they’re disgusted with spineless politicians, rising crime in core neighborhoods, a city council that thinks that the First Amendment is optional and a school board that thinks that sneaking a bonding referendum for a $100,000,000+ Tech HS should be voted on by only those in the ‘education community’. (That’s why the school board kept everything hush until the Times accidentally ruined the School Board’s plans.) But I digress.

John’s post is about the young man who got brutalized in Minneapolis just outside Target Field. This is one of the videos of this disgusting event:

Day after day, week after week, month after month, Democrats hint that law enforcement is the problem. That puts police officers in the impossible position of having to do a difficult job without the full support of the communities they’re protecting.

Authorities admit that violent crime is up in Minneapolis, although they surround that admission with happy talk, which won’t be believed by anyone who actually ventures into the city at night. (The story is the same in urban St. Paul. One night last week, the St. Paul police lacked the manpower to respond to three shootings that happened more or less simultaneously in different parts of the city.)

Minneapolis’s mayor is a young man who worked briefly in my law firm and is obviously not up to the task. Members of the City Council are ridiculously left-wing and totally ineffective. In both Minneapolis and St. Paul, civic authorities are convinced that policemen are the gravest threat to “communities of color,” and therefore law enforcement should be scaled back, or only grudgingly reinforced in response to events like the one you see in the video above.

Then John notes what someone reminds him of:

A reader reminds me that I should have mentioned this: “Some Minneapolis candidates say they can envision a city without police.”

Seven City Council hopefuls and two mayoral candidates say in a local voter guide that they can envision a future Minneapolis with no police. Asked, “Do you believe that we could ever have a city without police?” two mayoral candidates and two incumbents and five serious challengers running for City Council answered “yes.”

The idiots on St. Cloud’s City Council aren’t that stupid but nobody’s mistaking them for Einstein’s relatives, either.

What St. Cloud needs is its version of Rudy Giuliani. If we don’t find that person fast, I hate thinking what depths St. Cloud will descend into.

This LTE highlights how society is increasingly rejecting objective truth. This paragraph is the perfect example of undisciplined thinking:

Our disagreements about how to run government, provide health care and offer housing and a sustainable living to families are only the tip of the iceberg. We disagree about how to best take care of both immigrants and citizens. None of the ways are the “right” way. We must understand that each is “a” way and that they all work with varying degrees of success. When we factor human kindness into the equation, or love of neighbor, we have more success.

Actually, the right way to deal with immigration is multi-faceted but eminently logical. It starts with the belief that each nation has the right to determine who gets into its nation.

In fact, it’s important to realize that nations have the affirmative obligation to protect its citizens. Providing for public safety is a core function of government. Implicit in the above paragraph is that there isn’t a wrong way. That’s foolish. The wrong way is the way that the Democrats’ presidential candidates are advocating for.

During the Democrats’ first round of presidential debates in Miami, FL, every Democrat presidential candidate lifted their hand, signaling that they thought the US should decriminalize illegal immigration. That’s insanity. That’s like sending out an invitation to the world that they can live in the US if they pay a fine.

Saying that all ways “work with varying degrees of success” is foolish. Closing immigration loopholes, tightening up asylum questions and sealing our border with physical walls will shut down illegal immigration to a trickle, stop human trafficking and restrict the flow of illegal drugs to the point of crippling the drug cartels’ profits.

Hearing Nancy Pelosi say that obeying the immigration laws that Congress has passed and that various presidents have signed “isn’t who we are” is sickening. If those signed laws that were passed by this nation’s elected leaders don’t represent our nation’s values, what does? After all, those laws weren’t shoved down our throats. They required compromise, wisdom and principles.

Democracy is that great American experiment in which we each have a say because we were created as equals, no matter our lot in life. Gerrymandering and restricting access to polling places (see our neighbors in North Dakota, for example) give lie to the experiment. True democracy makes it easier to vote and works toward equal representation, not the reverse.

Before the federal government existed and immediately after the Colonists won the Revolutionary War, France recognized each of the 13 former colonies as individual nation states. Today’s Democrats advocate for the opposite of the post-Revolutionary War United States by advocating for a system of government that doesn’t take into consideration what rural America, America’s heartland and blue collar America need but caters to the needs of coastal America and elitist America.

It’s important to stipulate that we don’t have a national government. We have a federal government. Theoretically at least, that federal government is there to serve the states. It isn’t there to tell the states what to do. The best way that the federal government can serve We The People is to let us make most decisions at the local or family level.

Yes, there really is a right way. Yes, there really is a wrong way. Though the Founding Fathers were imperfect, the Constitution that they put together was as close to perfect as any document in human history.