5 Replies to “Jesse Jackson praises Trump for his help to African Americans”
It is a sad state of affairs that DjT paid off the push coalition as well as Pepsi, et al, in order to do business in NYC. This is just the way it is if you want to build a building or something else in NYC.
I remember my father setting up a booth in the Javitz center 30 years ago and being strong armed by the union.He couldn’t put a socket in the wall without a union member being there. To really think that this is what the non-union people are rebelling against as well as other things.
We have entered into a bifurcated society where the people trying to get ahead are crushed by the gov’t.
Mr Jackson has assured this. Who will pay the bills? None of his friends…
Part of what Trump wants to do require amendments to the Constitution, since it is unlikely they will be passed by Congress we need to have a Convention of the states. One can be called and limited to amendment the Constitution and not writing a new Constitution. Any amendments voted out of the Convention they require 3/4ths of the states to approve them before they become part of the Constitution. This approach is much less risky then not calling one and continuing the way things are going now.
There’s an awful lot on his plate right now.
There will be more after tomorrow.
Richard, your comment is quite valuable but contains some potentially confusing verbiage. I am taking the gross liberty of rewording your statements in the hope of sparking some productive exchanges. Please do not hesitate to protest or reject my interpretations outright. In no way will I be offended and I hope that you might not take any offense at my efforts as well.
“Part of what Trump wants to do requires amendments to the Constitution. Since it is unlikely they will be passed by Congress, we need to have a [Constitutional] Convention of the states.”
The irony of your otherwise reasonable observation goes well beyond being profound. Liberal, so-called, “activist” judges have been twisting and stretching fundamental Constitutional law like so much saltwater taffy, even as their rulings involve more distortion than a week-long concert series by Jimi Hendrix.
That Conservatives prefer to utilize the established judicial avenues of actually amending the constitution speaks volumes about Liberal tendencies towards subversion.
“One [a Constitutional Convention] can be called and [be] limited to [whatever] amendment [of] the Constitution [is in question] BUT not [allow for the] writing [of] a new Constitution.”
Which is what must be guarded against at all costs. There are many Liberals who would like nothing more than to scrap the Constitution and “start over”. The question left hanging is, “What sort of government will there be in the interim?”. Few on the Left will ever admit that the door would be wide open for martial law or a police state, even as they remain conspicuously silent on the topic.
“Any amendments voted [into] the Convention require 3/4ths of the states to approve them before they become part of the Constitution. This approach is much less risky than not calling one and continuing the way things are going now.”
I tend to agree with you rather strongly. A simple comparison will reinforce this notion. Merely examine the original Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments almost exclusively limit the government’s power over the people. If one scrutinizes many of the Constitution’s most recent amendments they, with alarming consistency, typically regulate the citizenry’s ability to thwart government intervention. This is one major reason why a Constitutional convention needs to be held.
My only caveat is that such a measure must wait until a reliable executive sits in the Oval Office.
Discover more from Vlad Tepes
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
It is a sad state of affairs that DjT paid off the push coalition as well as Pepsi, et al, in order to do business in NYC. This is just the way it is if you want to build a building or something else in NYC.
I remember my father setting up a booth in the Javitz center 30 years ago and being strong armed by the union.He couldn’t put a socket in the wall without a union member being there. To really think that this is what the non-union people are rebelling against as well as other things.
We have entered into a bifurcated society where the people trying to get ahead are crushed by the gov’t.
Mr Jackson has assured this. Who will pay the bills? None of his friends…
Part of what Trump wants to do require amendments to the Constitution, since it is unlikely they will be passed by Congress we need to have a Convention of the states. One can be called and limited to amendment the Constitution and not writing a new Constitution. Any amendments voted out of the Convention they require 3/4ths of the states to approve them before they become part of the Constitution. This approach is much less risky then not calling one and continuing the way things are going now.
There’s an awful lot on his plate right now.
There will be more after tomorrow.
Richard, your comment is quite valuable but contains some potentially confusing verbiage. I am taking the gross liberty of rewording your statements in the hope of sparking some productive exchanges. Please do not hesitate to protest or reject my interpretations outright. In no way will I be offended and I hope that you might not take any offense at my efforts as well.
“Part of what Trump wants to do requires amendments to the Constitution. Since it is unlikely they will be passed by Congress, we need to have a [Constitutional] Convention of the states.”
The irony of your otherwise reasonable observation goes well beyond being profound. Liberal, so-called, “activist” judges have been twisting and stretching fundamental Constitutional law like so much saltwater taffy, even as their rulings involve more distortion than a week-long concert series by Jimi Hendrix.
That Conservatives prefer to utilize the established judicial avenues of actually amending the constitution speaks volumes about Liberal tendencies towards subversion.
“One [a Constitutional Convention] can be called and [be] limited to [whatever] amendment [of] the Constitution [is in question] BUT not [allow for the] writing [of] a new Constitution.”
Which is what must be guarded against at all costs. There are many Liberals who would like nothing more than to scrap the Constitution and “start over”. The question left hanging is, “What sort of government will there be in the interim?”. Few on the Left will ever admit that the door would be wide open for martial law or a police state, even as they remain conspicuously silent on the topic.
“Any amendments voted [into] the Convention require 3/4ths of the states to approve them before they become part of the Constitution. This approach is much less risky than not calling one and continuing the way things are going now.”
I tend to agree with you rather strongly. A simple comparison will reinforce this notion. Merely examine the original Bill of Rights. Those first ten amendments almost exclusively limit the government’s power over the people. If one scrutinizes many of the Constitution’s most recent amendments they, with alarming consistency, typically regulate the citizenry’s ability to thwart government intervention. This is one major reason why a Constitutional convention needs to be held.
My only caveat is that such a measure must wait until a reliable executive sits in the Oval Office.