Donald Trump

Trump Vows to Trash the Constitution

In 60 Minutes interview, Trump says the Constitution "doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK?"

|

Reason

In an interview last night on the CBS show 60 Minutes, Donald Trump was asked about the fact that his running mate, Mike Pence, once described Trump's call to ban Muslims from entering the United States as "offensive and unconstitutional."

Trump's response? "You know?the Constitution?there's nothing like it. But it doesn't necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK?"

There you have it. Trump freely admits that he won't let the Constitution and its pesky limits on government power get in the way of his agenda.

The idea that the Constitution "is not a suicide pact" has always been the last refuge for the worst sort of censors, warmongers, and authoritarians throughout U.S. history. Just think about all the ways in which this line of thinking might be used to obliterate constitutional rights:

  • Mr. President, you can't declare war unilaterally. That power resides in Congress. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
  • Mr. President, you can't censor the internet. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
  • Mr. President, you can't forcibly shutter houses of worship. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
  • Mr. President, you can't outlaw the private ownership of guns. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
  • Mr. President, you can't take private property for public use without paying just compensation. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."
  • Mr. President, you can't order American forces to commit acts of torture and other war crimes. "The Constitution is not a suicide pact."

Congratulations, Republicans. This is your presumptive nominee for the presidency of the United States.

NEXT: UFC: One Man's Brutal Spectacle Is Another's Eden

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Trump is gonna end up with a bad case of hemorrhoids if he keeps wiping his ass with that coarse parchment.

  2. Maybe Trump is the suicide pact of the GOP. Is Hillary the suicide pact of the Dems?

    1. Yes. Think of it as like when you smash two particles of equal mass and opposite charge in a supercollider. They (the two major parties in this case) self-annihilate.

      1. I wouldn’t mind sending those two for a ride at CERN

    2. It’s kind of like a game of full retard chicken. Each side daring the other to nominate a slightly more horrible candidate, to see which insanely awful candidate survives.

  3. I sure hope our contingent of immigrant hating yokels duly consider the means Trump is willing to go to achieving his ends.

    1. Go ahead, pull the other one.

    2. I sure hope this strawman I’ve constructed is easy to tip over. Hey, it is!

  4. Finally, bipartisanship has brought the two political parties together on at least one issue.

    1. You know who else said the Constitution is not a suicide pact?

  5. Limiting immigration is constitutional, just not on religious grounds. Root fail.

    1. Limiting immigration on any grounds is constitutional.

      1. As soon as the feds start respecting religious practices among its citizens we can talk about extending that privilege to non-citizens.

        1. Citizenship is irrelevant to “Congress shall make no law”.

          1. I’m actually curious about that. Does a law prohibiting immigrant applicants with a background of militant Islamism, provided it could narrowly define that, have any bearing on the free practice of religion within the country? They’re not prohibiting Islamism, not even militant Islamism, from being practiced in the United States. And they’re not preventing it outside the United States, as if that was ever a concern.

            1. (Which is all moot since there’s no reason to have any faith in DHS or the State Department or anyone else to ferret out Islamic terrorists, let alone people “at risk” for radicalizing.)

            2. I’m making a very narrow point. I’m not trying to say that I know that religion based restrictions on immigration are always unconstitutional.

            3. If they can find a way to define “militant Islamism”, and keep out people engaged in that, I don’t think anyone would object. Keeping out anyone who identifies as being of the Muslim faith is another story. We could do with more people who practice the type of Islam preached by Fethullah G?len, for example. Erdo?an notwithstanding, he is the very opposite of a terrorist.

          2. Strictly speaking, telling people that they have to stay in a nation where they are already the religious majority doesn’t impede their ability to practice their religion.

            1. We don’t have a right to practice religion somewhere, we have a right to practice religion everywhere. Your “strictly speaking” is only valid for a different set of premises than the First Amendment gives us.

              That having been said, there are plenty of ways to exclude potential immigrants that aren’t strictly about religion but would accomplish the desired effect. For example, by country of origin.

      2. How does limits for religion square with 1A? How could such a law be written not to “impede the free exercise”?

      3. That’s questionable. The constitution doesn’t actually say anything about giving Congress the power to control migration. Just to regulate naturalization.

    2. True, he could do so on grounds of nationality. Which means goodbye to highly talented and valuable skilled workers from countries with large Muslim populations.

      I can feel America getting greater again already!

      1. Which means goodbye to highly talented and valuable skilled workers from countries with large Muslim populations.

        Trucking industry hardest hit.

        What… too soon?

        1. The dems should support restrictions on Muslim immigration too. Where I live, they mostly work in gas stations selling fossil fuels and tobacco-two things the dems despise.

      2. >>”Which means goodbye to highly talented and valuable skilled workers from countries with large Muslim populations.”

        So what? Did China and India just suddenly disappear and I didn’t hear about it??

        1. I think we can make it, even if we shut off immigration from countries with an Islamist infection. Honestly, the only one we’d probably even notice, a little bit, is Pakistan, which exports a few doctors.

        2. India has a pretty large Muslim population.

          1. I’m aware of that. So that leaves us 1.1 billion Indians. Think we could manage with that, never even mind the Chinese engineers, workers, etc.?

            I’m saying what RC Dean said. Without even getting into whether or not Trump is right about importing Muslims, someone please tell me WTF we even need Muslims here for?

            1. The “what are they good for?” arguments always annoy me. What were the fucking Chinese good for? Those damn Italians? Do you really want to play that game? It’s incredibly fucking stupid.

              1. Says the guy who is stupidly arguing with himself. I asked what we need them for — let me help you — in the face of an abundant supply of billions of other foreign workers, professionals, etc.? Want to answer the question I actually asked or do you prefer to continue discussing with yourself the dumbass question “what are they good for” that you, not I, cooked up?

                1. It’s the same argument. The point is that you’re framing the issue over you/our/anyone in the U.S.’s collective “need,” when this is none of your business. If you want to argue that we shouldn’t let murderers, psychotics, and people who generally want to kill us into our nation, then I’m behind it, but whether you view a group of people as necessary (“needed”) is a stupid fucking argument. Who are you (or anyone else) to decide who is and isn’t needed? Fuck off.

                  1. As it appeared — you want to argue with yourself. OK, fine. But, really, tell yourself that “it’s a stupid fucking argument” isn’t a terribly incisive argument itself so that maybe yourself will try a slightly more inspired argument on yourself and maybe get yourself somewhere in your monodialogue.

                    1. Feel free to explain why you’re the arbiter of who is “needed” and I’ll be glad to say you’ve engaged here, you mendacious fuck.

                    2. Feel free to answer the question I asked rather than some straw man that you’ve concocted as the same question, with something besides ad hominems and non sequiturs as your most reasoned arguments, and we could make beautiful music together. Here’s a hint to help you on your way because you are truly on your own from this point. Here it is: I arbitrated nothing. Ciao.

                    3. You’re a fucking idiot. That’s an ad hominem. You made a claim that you refuse to back up, making you a coward. That’s a fact. You think your opinion about the usefulness (or “need”fulness if you want to play language games) matters when it comes to who is allowed to enter the country. Your question is a red herring. It’s no one’s business what “we even need Muslims here for.” If a business wants to hire them, why should anyone tell that business no? If a Muslim wants to come here peaceably, why does it matter if they’re “needed?”

                      You’re a fucking coward and an idiot.

                    4. Your question is a red herring. It’s no one’s business what “we even need Muslims here for.” If a business wants to hire them, why should anyone tell that business no?

                      We already have immigration quotas, and not anywhere even close to the number of people who would like to get in actually get in. Our entire immigration system is mostly based on skills, education and employment sponsorship. So we already have exactly the policy of asking “what do we need X for?” You’re asking stupid questions based on your total lack of comprehension how immigration presently works. If you’re making an argument about how it should work in libertopia that’s a different question.

                    5. Of course that is what he was doing — shotgunning boilerplate rigid libertarian immigration dogma at a simple question that didn’t even particularly challenge that. Sort of a spinal reflex thing that didn’t bother to summon the higher nerve centers. But then we probably should not have expected a lot in the line of cogent argument to the original question from someone who thinks that ad hominem arguments comprise strictly “you are ____” statements.

              2. The “what are they good for?” arguments always annoy me. What were the fucking Chinese good for? Those damn Italians?

                Building railroads cheaply? Various mechanical (not as much as the Germans) and agricultural skills while being slightly more respectable than the Irish?

      3. Like Mexico. We need to build a wall on the border with Mexico to protect us from Muslim immigration.

        1. Like Canada- I tried to “legally” visit, got turned back at their border wall because of a DUI 16 yrs ago. I’m sure they will let me stay if I just sneak in…

    3. Good to know there are so many “libertarians” whose top priority is figuring out how it’s constitutional to aggress against non-citizens.

      1. Wait a second here, is telling people they can’t play in your yard an act of aggression?

        1. When it’s a collective yard, and I want some of those people to come work for my business, but some third party is telling me no? Yes.

          1. Can I bring in anybody I want to as well?
            Sounds like a beautiful setup for a tragedy of the commons.

            1. You sure can, corpse-fucker. As long as those people leave me and my property alone, you can bring whoever you want, wherever you want.

      2. Good to know you still can’t understand the difference between “libertarian” and “constitutional”.

        Please go back to thinking with your cunt. It’s infinitely preferable to when you try to use your brain.

        1. Thanks for confirming every negative perception I have of Trump supporters. Racist and mysogynist to boot.

          1. There is no “y” in “cunt”. And only one in “misogynist”… lulz!

  6. Meanwhile, the current President continues to trash the Constitution

    1. Good thing there is a pro-constitution alternative in Hillary.

  7. WHY IS THERE NO ARTICLE ABOUT HILLARYS INTERVIEW ON 60 MINUTES LAST NIGHT

    1. Wait, is this sarcasm? Was there an interview? What was special about it?

      Now I have to know.

      1. There wasn’t.

    2. WHY IS 60 MINUTES STILL ON THE AIR?

        1. I think the Daily Show is not long for this earth.

  8. “The constitution is too a suicide pact!”

    1. Well, if it is, it is. If it turns out that it is, there is a process for changing it that has little or nothing to do with the president.

    2. Let’s change the constitution to make it less libertarian.
      -Trumpatarian.

      1. I’m sure VG would have this exact same reaction to Hillary Clinton making this statement.

      2. “Let’s change the constitution to make it less libertarian.”

        Hillary says she will advance an amendment to repeal “Citizens United” in her first 30 days.

        Try harder…

        1. Of course, “libertarian” Hazel also thinks exercising a Constitutional right means you need insurance.

          How about a “poll tax” girl?

  9. I’m not sure banning Muslims from entering is technically unconstitutional. Didn’t know that constitutional rights applied outside the United states

    1. Not sure if he’s revised this but his previous statements indicated that this would apply to all Muslims attempting to enter the US from abroad, including American citizens.

      1. Not sure if he’s revised this

        But it’s Trump, so you should expect that. And he did, in fact, do so

    2. All other recent presidents have banned immigrants from certain geographic areas, mostly muslim, including Obumbles. Constitutional or not, they have all done it and Trump will too.

      To Grand Moff, we don’t have to imagine or consider, we just look at recent history.

      1. Carter banned all Shia Muslims during the Iranian hostage crisis. There is no constitutional right to enter the country. The President has enormous discretion in that area. People have just made up the idea that the President couldn’t constitutionally ban a certain religion from entering the country. It is not true.

        1. Look John, those pants aren’t going to shit themselves.

        2. Carter didn’t specifically ban Shia Muslims, he stopped issuing visas to all Iranian citizens until the hostages were released.

          Also, even if Trump’s proposal in this instance is constitutional, his comment and thought process about the constitution is worthy of scorn and discussion.

        3. “The President” shouldn’t have this power. Congress should.

      2. Trumpkin Tom

        http://ktrh.iheart.com/onair/m…..-14909506/

        Give him a listen.

      3. Trumpkin Tom

        http://ktrh.iheart.com/onair/m…..-14909506/

        Give him a listen.

    3. “Congress shall make no law”. Applies everywhere and at all times. Rights applying or not really doesn’t come into it. It’s a rule about what the government can and can’t do and says nothing about geography or citizenship.

      1. The courts disagree zeb. Think of it this way, do we give people due process when we kill them in war? Not the last I looked. Why is that? The government couldn’t kill us citizens without due process, why can they kill foreigners in war without due process?

        The answer is because the constitution doesn’t apply to non US citizens outside of US territory. It doesn’t and it never has. And it was never intended to. You may wish it did, but that doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t.

        1. The first amendment doesn’t say anything about due process. I’m talking specifically about the first amendment. I don’t disagree with any of what you say here. I’m not even saying that I’m sure that a religious immigration restriction would be unconstitutional. Only that the first amendment, applies to congress and as such applies all the time and everywhere laws that congress makes can reach.

          1. But the president, acting unilaterally as Obama is want to do, could make such a restriction and probably get away with it.

            1. I’m going to be that douche: It’s wont, not want. I had to go look it up to make sure myself.

        2. The government couldn’t kill us citizens without due process

          Well, Bush’s government. After that…

          1. The government couldn’t kill us citizens without due process

            Freddie Gray was not a citizen?

            1. Over 600,000 civil war casualties disagree with John.

        3. The constitution doesn’t apply to US Citizens either. It certainly doesn’t apply to me. It applies to the governments within the US.

        4. The courts disagree zeb. Think of it this way, do we give people due process when we kill them in war? Not the last I looked. Why is that? The government couldn’t kill us citizens without due process, why can they kill foreigners in war without due process?

          Because ideally it means that Congress has used its Constitutionally authorized power to declare war on a country or group of people, which means the use of deadly force is authorized to complete some sort of goal. The act of Congress declaring war on a nation is a form of due process in which arguments for and against war are presented and deliberated and a vote is taken, in which the targeted country and inhabitants are warned that hostilities are imminent, and surrender will cause hostilities to cease.

          The answer is because the constitution doesn’t apply to non US citizens outside of US territory. It doesn’t and it never has. And it was never intended to. You may wish it did, but that doesn’t change the fact that it doesn’t.

          So Congress can pass a law making foreign criticism of the United States illegal?

      2. Isn’t immigration and naturalization one of those powers the Constitution actually grants to the Feds though?

        1. Naturalization, at least:

          The Congress shall have Power … To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization

          However, Zeb is also right that the First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law”. So Congress can create a uniform* rule of naturalization, but it cannot in so doing affect the free exercise of religion, nor establish a religion. Congress could say “no one can immigrate”, “no one from Syria can immigrate”, or even “no one with ties to ISIS can immigrate” but not “no Muslim can immigrate” .

          * = Not differing from state to state

  10. At least Trump is honest about it. And that’s much better than those other constitution trashers like Bush & Obama.

    1. You make a good point Jerry. I think saying “sure this is against the constitution but sometimes circumstances are a bitch” is better than having a bunch of hack lawyers write a bullshit memo that pretends it is okay, the way Bush and Obama did. Neither is good but honesty is generally better in any situation.

    2. Let’s vote for the guy who openly announces his intent to trash the constitution. We don’t want anyone to feel ashamed of that.

      1. I’m voting for Johnson or not voting at all.

        Having said that, how is voting for the guy who tells you how he’ll ass fuck the constitution worse than voting for the girl who will ass fuck the constitution, lie about it, and have a complicit media cover up the video of her doing it?

  11. So much for claims that Trump is out of the mainstream. Both parties have been saying this at least since 911. Maybe you guys forgot, but Obama ordered the assassination of an American citizen who was nowhere near a combat zone and claims the right to do it again. Hillary claims the same thing.

    The fact that both sides do it, doesn’t of course make it right. It does however make talking about this and never mentioning the other side like this post does, a bit deceptive.

    1. Trump doesn’t couch his extra-constitutional stylings in lofty legal language, surrounded by experts who are skilled in the business of linguistic obfuscation.

      Which is actually a good thing. It’s Trump’s simple-minded approach that seems to get Democrats at least marginally interested in the constitution again.

      I propose a new slogan for the Trump campaign: Trump, Make Liberalism Great Again.

      1. Ah yes, the dems were very interested in the constitution when Bush II was president, but they lost interest as soon as one of their own succeeded him. The constitution is an annoyance to those in power, just as it was intended.

      2. Wait, you’re telling me crushing the testicles of the child of an alleged terrorist to get him to talk may not actually be legal?

        1. My understanding was it was illegal from 2000-2008. It gets murky after that.

        2. And the US ever did this? Or is that just a fantasy of yours?

      3. I propose a new slogan for the Trump campaign: Trump, Make Liberalism Great Again.

        There’s nothing like a straight-up fascist to make people remember why they’re not.
        If Trump has done one really great thing is that he’s cause a whole lot of mask slippage and thereby shown us all who we are NOT.

    2. You whine like a little girl.

      1. He probably gets paid for it, though. Which is more than we can say for the rest of us.

        1. Or I have an honest disagreement with you. If there is anything that epitomizes being a whinny bitch, it is insisting that everyone who disagrees with you must be getting paid to be a big meanie and not sing with the choir.

          Why is the truth that this is mainstream so hard to take? Can you just not take the disappointment over Hillary?

      2. Oh fuck off. The truth is what it is. If you don’t like it, too bad.

        1. The truth is that this is an article about an interview with Trump. It has nothing to do with Obama or Hillary or anything else. And you whine like a little girl.

          1. It has everything to do with Obama and Hillary, since this is an issue where they share the same opinion. IF the article were about them, it absolutely should mention that the Republicans and Trump feel the same way. Doing otherwise is not telling the entire truth.

            Just get over it and stop whining.

            1. Every time Reason runs a piece critical of Trump you do the same thing: You while and stamp your feet because they didn’t say what you wanted to say.

              It is as predictable as the sunset.

    3. I largely agree with this. I’m too busy to dig them up, but you can find articles where Hillary Clinton has in the past promoted many of the exact same things Donald Trump is doing now. When Donald Trump says it, it’s a sign that he is dangerously unhinged, when Hillary does it, she’s painted as alternately pragmatically decisive or at worst as a mark 5 mod 4 shitweasel politician.

      Yes, it’s troubling that in the past 10 years, politicians have stopped paying even lip service to the idea that the U.S. government is in any way limited in its powers and scope of actions by the text of the U.S. constitution.

      Trump strikes me as being merely less deceptive that the professional politicians on that score, and if the deceptive guys who pretend to respect the Constitution while shredding it (Obama, Bush II, Clinton) are not beyond the pale, then neither should be the guys who are honest about their attitudes.

      The vast majority of primary voters no longer want a state limited in its powers; they want a government that rewards them and their friends and punished their enemies. You can’t shame them by decrying Trumps disrespect for any limitations on his power; they want a guy who will kick ass and take names; who won’t be a namby-pamby surrender monkey.

      Thus these sorts of articles don’t really diminish Trump’s support. If the user sees something as a feature and not a bug, hysterically pointing a finger at the feature will only decrease the user’s reluctance to buy…

      1. Most people don’t think in generalized terms. If the President started torturing people who help up 711s, the country would revolt. Most people can’t stand Muslims and hate terrorists and expect the government to do nasty things to them. Right or wrong, that is just how people are.

        1. Yeah, it’s the local cops who have the authority to torture people arrested for holding up 7/11s. Federalism, baby!

      2. The thing is that when it comes from a Democrat you expect it. The D’s have their whole “living constitution” doctrine, where they basically try to rationalize why doing whatever they want is constitutional.

        What you don’t expect is hearing the Republican nominee say the same thing. For the R nominee to utter the same sort of living constitution bullcrap as a standard Democrat and have it be accepted shows that the Republican party has moved left.

        That is what pisses me off so much about Trump, and all his retarded supporters. They are actively helping shift the Republican party in a more statist direction, on a whole bunch of issues. Trump leads, and they follow. And all because they hate immigration. They’re letting their irrationality about this one issue lead them to support un-libertarian shifts in policy stances on a whole array of core libertarian issues. And if he wins, those things become semi-permanent, because the Party establishment will look on it as a new formula for victory.

        It took decades to shift the Republican party towards the libertarian position on civil asset forfeiture, criminal justice, and drug policy. Trump is going to undo all that. You people think that the Republican Party is just going to go back to their old formula of limited government + religious conservatives? Think again. The new formula is going to be white identity politics + religious conservatives. Libertarians are going to be out in the cold. And oyu helped make that happen.

        1. ‘You’ referring to, in the plural, the Trump-leaning libertarians around here.

        2. y’all know Trump is a Democrat right?

          1. Is he currently registered as one?

            1. Does party registration matter to policy?

        3. I don’t think the GOP ever predominately shifted to libertarian stances on those issues, but you did have a few people like Rand starting to make progress in pushing it that way, and yes Trump (among others) definitely reverses that progress.

        4. Haven’t they, by their actions, shown that they don’t give two shits about the constitution for decades now?

          And how did Libertarians help get an influx of previous hardcore democrat voters (read: white, lower to middle class blue collar union types) to leave the donkeys to sign up with the elephants?

          1. The libertarians didn’t do it, but there are certain fake libertarians right now trying to help make sure that those people become a permanent part of the coalition – without changing their beliefs, mind you, but instead by moving the GOP towards their positions. That’s what all the people on here screaming that we have to vote for Trump because Hillary are about. They’re shills whose primary goal is to keep libertarians in the Republican plantation, because they think the path to victory for the GOP (and they care above all about which party is in power) is to rope in libertarians and blue collar working class whites at the same time. Hillary is so bad that libertarians have to vote for Trump to stop her from winning is the cattle prod they’re using to keep us in their corral. While simultaneously fucking over libertarian beliefs on core libertarian issues. The only way to stop that from happening is to tell the GOP to fuck off.

        5. That is what pisses me off so much about Trump, and all his retarded supporters. They are actively helping shift the Republican party in a more statist direction

          If you cut off the history of the Republican party at Calvin Coolidge, maybe. Trump isn’t suggesting one goddamn thing that hasn’t been a Republican party platform plank at one time or another in the last 15 years, and certainly in the last 25 years. During the Clinton administration a lot of Trump’s ideas were considered Third Way fusionism.

          That’s what’s so fucking annoying about idiotic cunts like you mindlessly parroting shitty talking points you picked up at ThinkProgress about how Trump is the mostest worstestest fascist since fascism came to fascist town. It’s too bad you were in cryofreeze for the last 20 years while every sitting president actually did the super-scary stuff that Trump threatens to do.

          1. I don’t think I have ever read ThinkProgress in my life. My concern is for making the Republican party more libertarian (or keeping it from becoming less libertarian). Which is the fucking opposite direction ThinkProgress would like to move in. ThinkProgress is probably shitting themselves with joy that Trump is anti-TPP, and that there are even so-called libertarians who are ok with that.

            Trump is objectively to the left of Bill Clinton since Clinton signed NAFTA and Trump thinks it was a bad idea.

            1. ThinkProgress is probably shitting themselves with joy that Trump is anti-TPP, and that there are even so-called libertarians who are ok with that.

              Ummm… What is Hillary’s (current) position on the TPP? I think it’s “I was massively for it, before I was against it to beat Bernie- but y’all just know I’m lying”.

              “Free Trade” does not require 2000 pages to describe!

    4. It’s Republican week. If they don’t run a bunch of articles trashing Hillary during the Demo convention, then it’s time to complain.

      1. I don’t see it that way. You take the articles as they are. And if you read this and didn’t know any better, you would think there was something different about Trump than the Democrats in this regard. Otherwise why write about it?

        Serious question Zeb, do you ever have a criticism of reason? If you do, i have never seen it. You seem to be willing to always defend them and give them the benefit of the doubt. That is of course fine. But you would be more credible in your defense, if you would occasionally go the other way.

        1. Sure I have criticisms of Reason. I just don’t feel the need to repeat them over and over. If I don’t like it, I can go read something else.

          I also give people the benefit of the doubt and try to interpret things charitably. Maybe I’m too forgiving, but that’s how I do it.

        2. For example, I pretty much agree with people that the over-focus on Trump is stupid. More articles critical of Hillary would be great. And I rarely even bother to read Nick’s posts at this point. And I generally skip Dalmia and a few others too because I know they will be stupid.

    5. Re: John,

      So much for claims that Trump is out of the mainstream.

      I’ve only seen that claim made by either Trumpistas (“HE”S ANTI_ESTOBLISHOMENT!”) or the dimwits in the mainstream media who believe that anybody who does not think like them are non-mainstream.

      And in fact there have been plenty of articles in Reason that show that El Trumpo’s views on immigration and economics do not deviate from those held by mainstream Republican thinkers, candidates and opinion makers. The rhetoric may be delivered in a different tone, with more refined language, but the message has been the same: we don’t like immigrants and we love economic autarky.

      1. Correction: people don’t like too many immigrants, or immigrants of the wrong type: welfare recipients, criminals, and those who would prefer to make the US more like the shitholes they escaped from.

        1. That last one goes the same for interstate immigrants.

          Please stop trying to make Texas more like California!

          1. “Californication” is a classic example of that principle, yes. We can’t do much about Californians screwing up Texas, but we sure as hell can do something about millions of Latin Americans and Middle Eastern Muslims screwing up the USA.

  12. Are those cocktail parties really worth it?

    1. Cocktail parties are so last century, quinoa cups and frushi are all the rage now.

  13. I look forward to the future pieces faulting republicans when heller is overturned.

    1. …And the prosecution of global warming deniers, and the overturning of citizens united…

      *The most dangerous attack on the constitution and our society is the first one I listed. Kudos to Reason for pointing out the action even if they missed its complete significance.

    2. It will be their fault for not doing enough to stop the Democrats.

  14. The only one so far, in Cleveland, that has promised to trash the constitution, has been this Steve Loomis character that is head of the cop labor union.

    But then unions are totalitarian leftists, so no surprise there.

  15. Trump Vows to Trash the Constitution
    In 60 Minutes interview, Trump says the Constitution “doesn’t necessarily give us the right to commit suicide, as a country, OK?”

    Once you translate from Trumpista to English, what he really said was that “The Constitution is not a suicide pact” which is something I believe Bill O’Reilly copyrighted already.

    That clich? is used by apologists whenever the discussion centers around a specific act of aggression committed by the State. The obvious logical implication is that the Constitution and whatever protections exist in it are irrelevant.

    1. That clich? is used by apologists whenever the discussion centers around a specific act of aggression committed by the State.

      Starting with Thomas Jefferson vis-a-vis the Louisiana Purchase. Demonstrating yet again that once you start making exceptions, it’s always a slippery slope.

  16. RE: Trump Vows to Trash the Constitution

    Well, score one for the fascist Trump the Grump.
    At least he’s honest about trashing the Constitution.
    I wonder when Heil Hitlary will come out of her socialist slaver closet and admit she wants to wipe her ass with the US Constitution as well.
    I’m not going to hold my breath on that one.

    1. I wonder when Heil Hitlary will come out of her socialist slaver closet and admit she wants to wipe her ass with the US Constitution as well.

      I thought she had.

  17. I find the “OMG, Trump will trash the Consitution!” schtick to be, well, naive.

    The Constitution has been trashed. There’s nothing left of it worth speaking of, really. It has gone from being something to restrain government, into a machine for generating privileges for favored groups.

    Honestly, what else is it “used” for these days?

    If you disagree, tell me what Constitutional provision hasn’t been gutted, with any remaining scraps used to either (a) generate privileges for favored groups or (b) distract from the totality of the State like shiny object?

    1. Authorization of the post office? Census taking?

      Free speech is pretty good (in the sense of actual, literal speech, which is how I prefer to read it). Free press (which in my mind covers every other means of communication), has take some hits with the significant restrictions of commercial and electioneering communications.

      1. Authorization of the post office? Census taking?

        Just because the Constitution “authorizes” a “post office” doesn’t mean we have to keep spending billions/yr when it’s obsolete.

        And they’ve already exceeded any rational limits on the census- It calls for nothing more than a decennial counting the inhabitants of the country- not how many toilets they have.

        1. I got the “long form” in 2000. I indicated there was 1 person living at my address and ignored the rest of the questions.

          They sent a “census worker” out. When he asked why I didn’t complete the form, I said “one- and if you show up at my door again, I will shoot you as a trespasser.”

          Didn’t hear anything after that :o)

  18. Islam is also a political system. Inherently so: it’s in the Koran, which is the perfect and final word of God in the language He speaks. None of the “render unto Caesar” separation of Church and state stuff like in the Bible. It’s not unconstitutional to exclude Communists or Nazis, so it shouldn’t be unconstitutional to exclude Muslims.

    Thought experiment: If Communism became a religion, would we have to let in Communists, simply because they called it a religion?

    1. But Islam is inarguably a religion. I think that the only relevant question is whether the constitution would allow immigration restrictions based on religion. I don’t think the answer is completely obvious. I tend to believe that the first amendment means that no laws or rules should treat anyone differently because of religious affiliation. But one could argue that it doesn’t necessarily apply to immigration rules.

      Even if it does mean that, restrictions based on nationality are almost certainly allowed and would work just as well to keep out the people you want to keep out.

      1. If a religion has at its core a belief in replacing the Constitution, it’s not simply a religion.

        This is part of why Islam is such a pain in the ass to deal with. It’s two mints in one: religious, and political. The regular “peaceful” Muslims form the pool in which the radicals and terrorists swim. It’s a Good Cop/Bad Cop routine writ large.

        It’s the mark of a deluded ideologue to maintain their principles must be applied perfectly everywhere, even in the face of real-world evidence that their principles fail in some instances. The whole point of the Constitution is to preserve liberty. (Same with libertarianism.) But people get tripped up: “Well, we want freedom of religion, and freedom of movement. Therefore, we cannot stop immigration by people who want to eliminate the Constitution and remove all of our liberty.” Not only can we, we have a duty to do so.

  19. “”The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Perhaps not in no many words. But America’s founding is plainly based on the oft-repeated concept of “Liberty or Death” (e.g. Fort Culpeper flag). So we are basically saying “yes, if the price is liberty, we’d rather be dead.” And we’ll defend liberty to the death. So one could counter that the rights the Constitution are based on a threat of self-annihilation or willing death in belief of a principle rather than in pursuit of self-interest. Better than tyranny, wherever it comes from.

  20. Mr. President, you can’t declare war unilaterally. Why not? Bush and Obama did.

    Mr. President, you can’t censor the internet. Why not? Clinton has wanted to for a long time.

    Mr. President, you can’t forcibly shutter houses of worship. Unless it’s for the children you end up killing, and the parents have scary guns, like Clinton did in Waco.

    Mr. President, you can’t outlaw the private ownership of guns. But you can join Clinton in calling for a long line of “reasonable, common sense” restrictions, such as banning the types of weapons of military usefulness the Second Amendment was about, and making you keep your self-defense weapon unloaded and locked up and otherwise useless.

    Mr. President, you can’t take private property for public use without paying just compensation. Who said anything about not paying? Ever heard of asset forfeiture? You wanna keep your stuff, don’t break the law, or carry cash.

    Mr. President, you can’t order American forces to commit acts of torture and other war crimes. Because Bush is facing war crimes charges now?

  21. WHAT CONSTITUTION?

  22. I quit my office job and now I am getting paid 93 Dollars hourly. How? I work-over internet! My old work was making me miserable, so I was to try-something different. 2 years after…I can say my life is changed completely for the better! Check it out what i do…

    Go to the web—-> http://www.Aspire-Jobs.com

  23. “Give me liberty or give me death” is not a….oh. Nevermind.

  24. ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL TO ALLOW FOLLOWERS OF THE QURAN/SHARIA into the USA..

  25. I can’t believe the country is about to elect somebody that speaks in fragmented soundbites.

  26. Well, bad news Damon, barring non-US citizens from entering the country isn’t unconstitutional. Non-US citizens have no Constitutional protection. In fact, barring immigration is one of the responsibilities of the president when he or she deems it appropriate to protect the borders. Whether you agree with his assessment of the danger is a whole other story.

  27. I wonder how such people think FedGov gets its authority to exist, let alone function, if not from the Constitution.

    If the Constitution was made by the People; and if the Constitution authorizes compelling some of the People to go to Vietnam Afghanistan and die; then yes, it is a suicide pact.

  28. We can even create playlists of them so it will be very easy to find our videos which we like. We can also download those videos and can watch them offline. Showbox for pc

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.