Tag Archives: Article II

Trump remains ignorant of the U.S. Constitution

Debbie Mucarsel-Powell is a first-year member of the U.S. House of Representatives, who happens to serve on the House Judiciary Committee.

She is a Democrat from Florida who is likely to vote “yes” on articles of impeachment against Donald John Trump. She is a native of Ecuador.

The congresswoman offered an obvious observation today, which is that “I don’t think the president has ever read the Constitution.”

Gee, do ya think?

I happen to virtually certain he’s never looked at it. If he has, then he looked past Article II, the segment dealing with executive authority, or the power of the presidency. He infamously referenced Article II not that long ago when he declared that it enables the president to do whatever he wants.

No. It does not! Not even close. Indeed, Article II spells out the limits of executive authority. Indeed, Article I — which deals with the legislative branch of government — implies heavily that the executive branch’s powers are kept on a tight leash.

Rep. Mucarsel-Powell’s instincts are correct. Trump took office without dedicating a single moment of his entire pre-political life to public service. He didn’t understand government when he ran for the presidency and doesn’t understand it now that he is president.

Donald Trump sounds and acts like someone who fancies himself as The Boss. He isn’t. You’re the boss. As am I … the boss. We call the shots. Not him.

Had he ever thought for a moment about the U.S. Constitution, the document he took an oath to “defend and protect,” he might understand the limitations it places on the presidency.

I do not believe he has done that. I also believe his ignorance of the Constitution is precisely the reason the House of Representatives is going to impeach him.

No, Article II doesn’t let POTUS do whatever he wants

Oh, Mr. President …

If you would take a few minutes from your incredibly busy day tweeting out insults and stupid policy pronouncements to actually read the U.S. Constitution, you would understand something quite basic about the nation’s founding document.

Article II lays out the powers inherent in the presidency. Article I, though, speaks to the powers of Congress. You’ll note that Congress’s power allows the legislative government branch to act as a deterrent against the executive branch reaching beyond its grasp.

That means, Mr. President, that Article II does not give the president unlimited, unbridled, unfettered, unrestricted power to do whatever the hell he or she wants.

Let’s not forget, Mr. President, that we have the courts that stand as a watchdog against any abuses that either the president or Congress might seek to foist on the citizens. Their power is outlined in the Constitution, too, Mr. President. It’s in Article III.

Oh, and then you said you “never talk about it”? Well, duh! What did you just do by even mentioning this fabrication? You, um, talked about it!

You see, Mr. President, it is that kind of ignorant idiocy that gives millions of Americans such as me all this angst when we ponder this question: How in the name of rational governing policy did you get elected to this office in the first place?

This will come as no surprise to you, if you ever get to see this post, but your idiotic lies about the Constitution and other matters about which you know nothing are among the many reasons I want you removed from the office.

Sen. McConnell then . . . and now


A colleague and acquaintance of mine has shared an item on social media that I’d like to share here.

It comes from Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell who in 2005 made a fascinating point about defending the right of presidents to make appointments to the federal judiciary.

It states:

“The Constitution of the United States is at stake. Article II, Section 2 clearly provides that the President, and the President alone, nominates judges. The Senate is empowered to give advice and consent. But my Democratic colleagues want to change the rules. They want to reinterpret the Constitution to require a supermajority for confirmation. In effect, they would take away the power to nominate from the President and grant it to a minority of 41 Senators.”
“[T]he Republican conference intends to restore the principle that, regardless of party, any President’s judicial nominees, after full debate, deserve a simple up-or-down vote. I know that some of our colleagues wish that restoration of this principle were not required. But it is a measured step that my friends on the other side of the aisle have unfortunately made necessary. For the first time in 214 years, they have changed the Senate’s ‘advise and consent’ responsibilities to ‘advise and obstruct.'”

Interesting, yes?

Well, 11 years later, the majority leader himself is proposing to “advise and obstruct” by seeking to delay a presidential appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court until after the November general election that, McConnell hopes, will produce a Republican president.

Well, Mr. Majority Leader, has Article II Section 2 of the Constitution changed?


That settles it; Cruz can run for POTUS

Ted Cruz has done it. He’s released his birth certificate that says, by golly, that he was born in Canada to a Cuban father and an American mother.

The junior U.S. senator from Texas can seek the Republican Party presidential nomination in 2016 if he so chooses.


I’m glad he got that out of the way.

I also am hoping Cruz’s foes on the left — and you can count yours truly as one of them — do not keep harping on his birthplace as a reason he cannot run the way those on the right have kept doing as it regards the current president of the United States, Barack H. Obama.

Scholars have said that the constitutional clause “natural born citizen” includes those who are born abroad to American parents. Cruz has settled the issue with his birth certificate. President Obama said all along that he was born in the United States to an American mother and a Kenyan father. That didn’t matter to his critics, who kept insisting he was born in Africa.

Forgive my repeating myself, but if Cruz’s explanation about what the Constitution stipulates regarding presidential eligibility is good enough, why would it matter whether Barack Obama was born in Hawaii or in Kenya? He could’ve been born on Mars and would still be eligible to serve — as long as one of his parents was an American.

The president in 2012 released his own birth document that said, yep, he was born in Hawaii. That, too, settled it.

As for Cruz, thanks for coming forward. Now, let’s get on with arguing about issues … eh?