Friday, November 11, 2016

President Trump's Commitment to Constitutional Government

President Trump lost no time in starting his administration.  He put up a website,, that outlines his priorities, advertises for political appointees of the highest caliber, and states his positions. 

He devotes a policy section to Constitutional Rights.  In it, he goes much further than recent residents of the White House.  His choice of words is telling.  From
Donald Trump understands the solemn duty that comes from the Oath of Office – swearing to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He embraces the fact that the reason the Founders of this nation decided to adopt a written Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land for the first time in world history was to create a democratic form of government in which ordinary people would know the powers of government and the rights of the people. That is why the Constitution's 4,400 words were written in a way that ordinary Americans would read and understand them, and use a standard to hold public officials accountable.

As President, Donald Trump will fulfill that sworn duty, vetoing legislation that exceeds Congressional authority, taking actions as Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief that are consistent with his constitutional role, and nominating Judges and Supreme Court Justices who are committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning. He will defend Americans' fundamental rights to free speech, religious liberty, keeping and bearing arms, and all other rights guaranteed to them in the Bill of Rights and other constitutional provisions. This includes the Tenth Amendment guarantee that many areas of governance are left to the people and the States, and are not the role of the federal government to fulfill. The Constitution declares that as Americans we have the right to speak freely, share and live out our beliefs, raise and protect our families, be free from undue governmental abuse, and participate in the public square.
There are important particulars in this document.  First, it is not the simple platitude that politicians often spout. Many politicians will say they "support the Constitution" or "the Bill of Rights" or the "Second Amendment", without any particulars, and most importantly, with the understanding that the Constitution is the false malleable, plastic, non-protective, "living constitution" fabricated by "progressives". 

Key phrases that jump out to those who have followed political debate for the last few decades:

"fundamental rights"

"committed to interpreting the Constitution and laws according to their original public meaning"  (no "living constitution")

"religious liberty"

"keeping and bearing arms" 

"This includes the Tenth Amendment guarantee that many areas of governance are left to the people and the States, and are not the role of the federal government to fulfill."

Who was the last president that even remembered the Tenth Amendment?  This is a remarkable policy statement for a president, just after his election.  It is a good sign.

©2016 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Link to Gun Watch


Anonymous said...

Except the Constitution was not crafted to be a democratic FORM of government, indeed it says quite the opposite self evidently. Epic FAIL.

Can you say government of Republican FORM?
Sure, I knew you could.

Anonymous said...

I think you mean Republic not Republican but quite correct. it not a democracy

Anonymous said...

NO, I meant Republican form, which is of course very different than saying Republican Party form.

It should be akin to saying the same thing, but then, that would take a Republican Party that actually defended the government of Republican form.

Open discussion about the difference is summed up in one word - RINO. Republican In Name Only.

Adherence- to the letter - to the Constitution to Declared ends isn't exactly east all the time. Sometimes it is hard, especially politically (in today's climate). However, in the long term, if that Party would remain faithful to its namesake, elections would take care of themselves.

That is why the "big tent" idea only served to destroy the link between name and action.

Anonymous said...

To correct both of you it is actually a Representative Republic. That means not always does the majority rule. The founders knew that single handed rule of a monarchy did not work nor did mob rule. They were wise enough to recognize this by granting the states sovereign rights that were critical to the foundation of the new nation. They made the peoples house to represent the people and the senate to represent the individual states. Different goals with protections for both. They also made it difficult to ram legislation through without debate by having 2/3 condenses. The founders struck a delicate balance to ensure the country would endure while protecting the individual states rights and the interest of the people living in the many states. Nothing archaic about this system but it is a beautiful that if we do not like the direction we have the right as a citizen to have our voices heard at the ballot.