Skip to main content

 

I was watching a recorded interview of a guy talking in the lobby of the Trump International Hotel In Washington DC on Jan 5th. He was stating that tomorrow, Jan 6th there was going to be fighting for the Constitution. Now, I don’t want to get into all the garbage about it being preplanned because that may be for another blog. What I want to discuss is where in the hell is this insurrection stuff in the Constitution? I have looked and I don’t see it. I am not a Constitutional lawyer like Ted Cruz but I looked anyway. That Ted Cruz bit is sarcasm by the way.

I know there are people who think the Second Amendment was put there for the people to rebel against the government. I believe such great Constitutional defenders like Rand Paul and Matt Geatz have stated that much. More sarcasm. I don’t see where that wording is. Now it does talk about the Security of a free State. It does not talk about the rebellion anywhere. People will say that you have to read between the lines. I am sorry; the Second Amendment is just one line. No lines to read between. Being just one sentence I have to believe the writers knew what they were writing about. It was put there for defense and it says so. Nowhere does in say anything about a group of people rebelling against the government. It was put there for the security of that government. It was put there to protect us from the very insurrectionists that wanted to use it to destroy our democracy.

What would they have done if they were successful? What would they have done is they succeeded to put Trump up on his throne? I would think that the Supreme court would have something to say about that because that is not in the Constitution. There is no way that it says that a person can be reinstated to the Presidency or any other office. For that to happen, the whole Constitution would have to be thrown out the window along with the Supreme Court. At that point the United States that we knew ceases to exists. The great experiment is over. Is that what the money people want? I know that this is what Putin wants. Is this what the majority of Americans want?

As I have stated many times the freedom that our forefathers fought for was the opportunity to form their own representative government. They fought for the ability to write that Constitution that so many today would just as soon throw out the window. They claim to be patriots but it was patriots that wrote that document and I am pretty sure they would not be in favor of you just destroying their vision. I know I wouldn’t be if I was one of them. They wrote it in a way so it could keep on evolving with the times. I think that when they wrote they knew that someday slavery would be no more and the country would have to evolve with the times. I really think that those guys were smart and had a real vision of the future for their new country.

Now there are ways to change the Constitution but armed insurrection is not one of them, that is the way to destroy it. The way is called Amendments to the Constitution. That is the only way that I can see that it can be changed short of a Constitutional Convention and I think that two thirds of the states would have to request it. I could be wrong. You know I am not a constitutional expert like Josh Hawley. More sarcasm.

An armed insurrection is how our Constitution and our Democracy dies, not how it is preserved.  That is not what our forefathers had in mind. What they had in mind is a government of the people, by the people, for the people. This is not just white people or brown people, All people. The lying and the misinformation have to stop. It only weakens us and strengthens our enemies. Why would one side or the other want to weaken America? Who benefits from a weakened America? Those are the questions that the whole nation should be asking. That is the question that I am asking you. Who benefits? I think if you really think about it you will realize that it isn’t you that benefits.

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

  Tommy Tuberville made a comment about Biden eating an ice cream cone in New York City. He posted on X that “Hope @JoeBiden enjoyed going out for ice cream in NYC while the rest of the city is afraid of crime and migrants”. If Senator Tuberville was really an informed and knowledgeable lawmaker he would know that Alabama, the State that he represents in the Senate, has a murder rate that is three times the rate of New York City. I wonder if this is a case of another Republican lying and giving misinformation in an attempt to weaken our nation or is he just a politician that doesn’t have a clue to the real problems that face the nation and the State he is suppose to represent. Maybe it would help if Tuberville actually lived in the State he is supposed to represent. If you believe the Washington Post he actually lives in Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. I have been to Santa Rosa Beach and I have to admit it is beautiful there but that should not be an excuse for not living in the State you r
  If I was a parent of a handicapped or developmentally disabled child I would be very nervous right now. If I was a parent of a Gay or Tran’s child I would be very nervous. Why? I think that we have a person running for the office of President that thinks that it is ok to mock people with disabilities. President Biden is a stutterer and he has worked hard to overcome that disability. That should be something that should be an inspiration to not only people with disabilities but to the entire nation. He is a man that has risen above his stuttering to achieve remarkable things. By Trump mocking Biden because of his stuttering he is sending a message to the entire country it is ok to bully other people just because they are different or have a disability. Now Biden is a grown man that has had to endure bullying like that all his life and he has come out probably stronger because of it. Not everyone is as strong as Biden. Biden is not the first person that Trump has insulted because a h
  Trump’s oath of office, his lawyers are saying that Trump never took an oath to support the Constitution. Why would his lawyers say this? The reason is because the Presidential oath of office does not have the word “Support” in it. The Presidential oath uses the words “Preserve, Protect, and Defend” the Constitution. Why would the Presidential oath not use the word support? Could it be that the President is held to a higher standard than just support the Constitution? I have read that is the reason why that the words “Preserve, Protect and Defend” are used is to show the greater responsibility the President has to the Constitution. I think Trump’s lawyers want us to believe that Trump had less of a responsibility to our Constitution because the word “Support” is not in his oath. I think just the opposite; he had a stronger responsibility and failed at that responsibility, badly. Maybe that is because he never read the Constitution of the United States. Trump’s lawyers also say Sect