Donald Trump

The Real Threat to the Constitution Is Trump

No amendment is safe.


Trump wall
Omer Messinger / ZUMA Press / Splash News/Newscom

For a Republican presidential nominee, Donald Trump has shown an unprecedented aptitude for alienating Republicans. Mitt Romney isn't voting for him. George W. Bush has declined to endorse him. George H.W. Bush reportedly will vote for Hillary Clinton.

Many people in his party have repudiated Trump's comments on race, immigration, Vladimir Putin and more. But among those who support him, there is one decisive, last-resort justification: Trump would appoint conservative Supreme Court justices who would uphold the Constitution, and Hillary Clinton would not.

What makes them so sure? If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it's that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his many bankruptcies.
The evidence is abundant for anyone paying attention. He provided more in calling for the use of "stop and frisk" by police in Chicago, citing the "incredible" results the practice yielded in New York.

But the tactic is no longer in use in New York, thanks to a federal court decision ruling it a violation of the Fourth Amendment ban on "unreasonable searches and seizures." The court said New York cops were stopping and searching people "without a legal basis" and doing it in a racially discriminatory way.

Nor does Trump have much use for the Fifth Amendment, which says no one may "be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." He insists that undocumented immigrants could be deported without a court hearing.

The Supreme Court, however, has long held that the guarantee is not limited to citizens. "All persons within the territory of the United States are entitled to the protection" of due process, it said in 1896.

His promise to inflict torture on alleged terrorists is also at odds with the Fifth Amendment, which protects suspects from being forced to incriminate themselves, as well as the Eighth Amendment, which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." The United States has signed an international treaty banning torture, and the Constitution states that "all treaties" are "the supreme law of the land."

Trump exhibits a comprehensive contempt for the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of religion and the press. Trump wants to set up a national database of Muslims and endorsed Ted Cruz's idea of police patrols of Muslim neighborhoods—either of which would violate religious rights by singling out one faith for special burdens.

He also wants to curtail the freedom of the press, an institution he reviles. "We're going to open up those libel laws," Trump vows, "so that when The New York Times writes a hit piece which is a total disgrace or when The Washington Post, which is there for other reasons, writes a hit piece, we can sue them and win money." He hopes to use the threat of financial ruin to deter news organizations from candidly assessing him.

The chief protection against this sinister ambition is the Supreme Court, which says the First Amendment protects those who resort "to exaggeration, to vilification … and even to false statement." Libel actions may not be used by public figures to suppress criticism, even if it's inaccurate. Trump's problem, of course, is not criticism that is factually inaccurate but criticism that is factually true.

Trump wants to foil "anchor babies" by repealing birthright citizenship, which is granted by the 14th Amendment. It says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

To focus on specific provisions of the Constitution that offend Trump, however, gives him too much credit. He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy. The real problem is his disdain for the notion that it should hinder him from doing whatever he wants.

Some conservatives think they can count on him to place conservatives on the court because he has provided a list of possible nominees that they find acceptable. Why they think he would be any more steadfast on that promise than any other is a mystery. In the end, he would do whatever suits his whim.

The Republican nominee regards the Constitution the way he regards the Bible—as a revered document to invoke when convenient, not one to follow. Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.

© Copyright 2016 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

NEXT: I'm the ONLY One Talking About Entitlements, Free Trade, Regime Change: Gary Johnson on ABC News' This Week

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Slightly OT: What kind of trailer park bitch sleeps with a women’s husband and then decides that she should show up at the wife’s job interview?…..on-debate/

    I confess to having a little bit of a crush on Monica Lewinsky; who seems like a decent, salt-of-the -earth type; but as for the rest of Clinton’s dalliances? Yich.

    1. Sounds like the kind of person who wouldn’t pay her mortgage.

      1. Does she even have a job? I mean Other than the one where she tells everyone who will listen how she likes to fuck married men?

        1. Nice victim-blaming, you little twat.

        2. If Flowers is a trailer park bitch,

          WTF does that make Bill and Hitlerclit?

          1. The kind of people who “drag a hundred-dollar bill through a trailer park, [to see what] what [they]’ll find.”

    2. It takes a brave soul to admit something like that, amsoc.

      1. She has that naughty innocent thing going. Have you seen images of her lately? I’d say she’s fared better than Bill– certainly better than any of Bill’s train wrecks.

      2. He respects kneeling in front of the state.

    3. The wife was head of the bimbo control unit that focused on destroying the credibility of the women sexually assaulted by a powerful political figure.

      1. AKA the most qualified person to EVER run for the office of POTUS.

    4. “trailer park bitch”

      LOL. You leftists love to portray yourselves as the champions of the little guy, but when one of your “elite” politicians is inconvenienced in some way your true colors show and you piss all over anybody who works for a living if they don’t hoist an expensive latte in honor of Herself.

    5. Start making cash right now… Get more time with your family by doing jobs that only require for you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home. Start bringing up to $15000 a month. I’ve started this job and I’ve never been happier and now I am sharing it with you, Go to this website and click tech tab to start your own business…

    6. The real threat to the constitution is AmSoc, amd Stave Chapman.

  2. Isn’t the, for lack of a better word, “anchor baby problem” a simple fix? Deport the mother, and let her take the kid with her. The child can come back and be treated with all of the rights and privileges granted to a US Citizen upon reaching an age of independence (14?16?)

    I agree that the child is a citizen. I don’t know why his family members need to be granted permanent residency to that end.

    1. Correct. This is a non issue except for racists who think living in Mexico is a death sentence.

      1. Funnily enough, there are lot’s places in Northern Mexico where living there is a death sentence – thanks to the United States.

        End the WoD, create a guest worker program without quota limits, then close the border if you still feel its necessary.

        1. Before the 1965 immigration reforms, Mexicans could freely cross the border with the US? and they’d come here to work for a while and usually return to Mexico after earning enough money to live in a Mexico for several months at which point, they’d come back to the US. After the 1965 reforms, when crossing the border got tougher, they’d stay in the US for longer times and eventually put down roots here.

          1. Hmmmm. What else happened around that same time-frame?
            Wait, it’ll come to me.
            Oh, yeah, that whole “war on poverty” thing where taxpayer money was handed out to those who managed to claim they didn’t have any.
            That couldn’t have altered the actions of poor people coming, here, could it?
            Those “roots” have been paid for by American workers and are in serious need of being uprooted.

    2. 5th amendment implies we can’t deport citizens without due process.

      1. Not sure where you find “citizens” in the 5th Amendment. It refers to “persons.”

        1. The “people” in the Constitution are the citizens and not invaders.

        2. The “people” in the Constitution are the citizens and not invaders.

          1. It doesn’t refer to “the people.” It refers to “persons.” There’s a difference.

            In his opinion in US v. Verdugo-Urquidez, Rehnquist went through the terms of art.

            “The people” doesn’t just refer to citizens, but it does refer to persons with a firm and/or longstanding connection to the US, e.g. permanent residents.

            “Persons” refers to everyone.

            And immigration without permission wouldn’t be “invasion” even IF the US Constitution didn’t clearly and unambiguously forbid Congress to regulate it.

            1. Congress maintains full authority for making the rules regarding immigration and naturalization. That is what is clearly and unambiguously stated in the U.S. Constitution.

      2. He’s not talking about deporting the citizen. Just the parent. The parent would (probably?) take the “anchor baby” with them. I think that’s more likely (and therefore presumably more humane) if the mom knows that her kid can come back to the US at a later point as a citizen.

        FWIW, with regards to JohnB’s original comment, I’m not sure how that solves the “anchor baby problem”. It would just delay it by about 16 years. I think the anti-“anchor baby” crowd would not be okay with the thought of a whole lot of 16-yo Mexicans who are legal US citizens showing up and demanding their rights and welfare and obamacare and whatever else gives them nightmares.

        1. I might be ok with 50% of them. If they’re hot enough.

      3. So we streamline the process for which they are due.

    3. I looked into “anchor babies” a while ago and this is what I found:

      1) If the parents are deported, the child goes with them.

      2) An “anchor baby” cannot sponsor their parents for citizenship until they are 18. If the parents entered the US illegally, they have to leave the US and remain outside for 10 more years.

      3) “Anchor babies” are most popular amongst Asians (usually wealthy Chinese who spend their prebirth time in the US shopping at expensive stores in Los Angeles) for the purpose of getting their child US citizenship to make it easier for them to enter a US university (and sometimes private US primary or secondary education).

      4) An “anchor baby” has to pay US income taxes on their earnings anywhere in the world.

      1. The popularity of Chinese “anchor babies” is also in part caused by a desire to get around the one child policy. If the kid is an American citizen, it doesn’t count against the parent’s quota.

        1. Didn’t know that. Very interesting.

      2. And how many of those are enforced?

      3. You forgot the part about anchor babies not being authorized by the 14th Amendment. Even the quote used in the article clearly states that.

    4. The 14th Amendment does not grant citizenship based only on being born on American soil. Even the quote used in the article spells that out.

      A guest worker program, as well as greatly increased resources dedicated to processing applications for legal immigration from Mexico, would go a long way.

  3. Trump’s list was probably created by someone else. If Trump becomes president he’ll pick some pretty girl or a family member to fill court benches.

    1. So an improvement over previous Presidential picks

  4. *A* real threat to the Constitution is Trump. Another threat is Clinton. I really don’t know who is the less of two evils this go around.

    Which is why my vote is going to Cthulhu.

    1. When Hillary became SoS, she had about 1000 copies of the US constitution printed up. Wanna know why? So she would never miss a day wiping her ass with it.

      Chapman, you have missed the boat.

    2. Yeah, I was on board right up to that last sentence. I don’t trust Trump as far as I could throw him, but it’s pretty much a lead pipe cinch that Clinton’s SCOTUS appointees would be horrible. She’s publicly vowed to appoint only justices who promise to gut the 1A, she wants to ignore the 2A, and I have no reason to believe she’d uphold the rest of the BoR, either. Since government is an omniscient, omnibenevolent force for good (at least as long as she’s in charge of it), any attempt to limit its powers can only be motivated by evil.

      1. Has Chapman listened to the hostility towards all parts of the 1st Amendment Clinton and the rest of Democrats currently hold? Essentially, they seem to think “free press” only applies to people and organizations with journalism credentials. The rest of the citizenry can bugger off. Trump may be bad, but Clinton has an entire party behind her on how she wants to rape our 1st Amendment protections.

  5. Hitlery wins, it’s business as usual – war war war more attacks on individual liberty, tax tax tax spend spend spend
    regulate regulate tax tax tax spend spend spend regulate regulate.

    Trump wins, the DC elite discover the US Constitution and the limits of executive power. Gridlock!!!

    1. gridlock is what I pray for every day since we will never get the opposite of government largess

  6. Chapman escaped from the home again.

    1. When I saw the title of the article, my first thought was Chapman.

      1. You win. I guessed Suderman.

        1. 1/3 chance of either with Dalmia being the other guess.

    2. Reason has a facepalm quota to fill.

  7. “Conservatives might consider that it would be less threatened by a court made up partly of Clinton appointees than by a presidency occupied entirely by Trump.”

    Because those proggie justices will only be damaging us for 30-40 years and their damage will be very difficult to undo, but Trump will be gone in 4-8 years.

    Chapman logic.

    1. Chapman wants prog SCJs so it makes total sense to him.

    2. You forgot the scare quotes around “logic”.

    3. Yeah, interesting argument. It’s 4th quarter, 3 seconds left, down 4, ball is at midfield. Chapman suggests a kneel down (Hillary), because we could possibly throw a pick on a Hail Mary (Trump) or fumble it away on some crazy hook and ladder/Music City Miracle attempt (GayJay).

      1. dude, that there is an analogy Touchdown!!!

  8. Clinton is the real threat. She could be impeached but Democrats would never convict. Republicans, on the other hand, would send the Donald packing in a minute,

    1. ^Exactly this. Hillary is a creature of Washington and between her, her husband, and that Clinton Foundation cash, she’s got enough juice to take impeachment off the table. Plus, the Dems will never go after one of their own. Trump, on the other hand, is hated by pretty much everybody. He’ll have to work with Congress or he’ll get nothing done. Executive Orders can be overridden, and neither party claims the Donald as their own so impeachment would be a breeze.

      1. I think that is the biggest indictment of Chapman’s point of view. He is inherently more comfortable with a Washington insider. The Democrats currently oppose every aspect of the 1st Amendment to one extent or another, but they are the safe choice in Chapman’s eyes.

        1. Can Libertarians more comfortable with political insiders actually honestly call themselves Libertarian?

        2. There is a part of the First that the demoncraps like – the super-freedom granted to the press, who don’t have to worry about being sued or indicted for printing blatantly false or made-up stories.
          “Journalists” just love them some super-freedom.
          Wait…doesn’t Chapman claim to be one of those?
          Guess he, like so many other “journalists”, would rather see the Constitution continue to be turned on its head, rather than have to abide by the same laws we mere mortals must live with.

    2. “Republicans, on the other hand, would send the Donald packing in a minute”

      HA. When was the last time Congress impeached a president belonging to the same party? Or even came close to it? Or even thought about it? Hint: never.

      1. When’s the last time a party has openly denigrated its own candidate? Trump is a Republican in name, sure, but he’s not a party man, and he doesn’t have the loyalty of the party.

        1. Which is why Priebus is smacking everyone around and made Cruz kiss Trump’s ring. If you think the GOP will restrain their own guy, I have a bridge in NYC for sale.

  9. Reason is just setting things up to endorse Hillary.

  10. Totes – I mean, he has his own bill writing machine under his desk that circumvents congress! And all of those Republicans in Congress who detest him, along with the Democrats, will totally craft whatever legislation trump will wants! Of course this assumes that trump actually means everything he has said (even that which contradicts other things) throughout the campaign and that these desires, however impractical some of them may be, simply must, as a matter of physics, materialize! I’m a third grader who somehow got a job working for the Chicago Tribune!

    Chappie should be relieved – Trump will give him an excuse to write more melodramatic nonsense for another four years.

  11. Leave Trumpy alone!

    Also Trump has never said anything racist (Mexican is not a race!), sexist (those broads be bugging!), or hilariously uninformed. Plus Hillary’s worse. Also cosmotarian, anti-PC, SJW, signaling signaling signaling…That pretty much covers the ‘libertarian’ case for Trump, and all the responses to anything that points out one of his (take your pick) disqualifying attributes.

    Jesus, could Gary Johnson stop acting like a goofus for one news cycle?

    1. But that’s the thing, libertarians who despise Trump, pretty much HAVE to choose Johnson, because choosing Hillary is picking the candidate farthest away from liberty….

  12. Just for fun I googled up ‘Steve Chapman second amendment’.

    First three hits:

    -Does the Second Amendment really protect your right to carry a gun?

    -Obama and the Second Amendment
    Obama poses no visible threat to the second amendment

    -The Truth about the Second Amendment is Complex

    Someone explain to me how Chapman even has shades of libertarianism?

    1. Liberaltarian moment?

    2. He’s Reason’s Juan Williams.

    3. Let’s say Trump gets elected. And, god forbid, there’s another one of these mass shootings with an AR-15.

      Do you really think that he’s going to hold the line against the gun grabbers in that situation, with the media firestorm that would follow? The guy changes his mind five times before breakfast and apparently believes whatever the last person he talked to told him.

      1. WDATPDIM?

        If you are of the mind that the race is Trump vs. Clinton, there’s no question on who is the lesser of two evils.

        Trump probably won’t aggressively defend the 2A.
        Clinton will actively shit on it.

        Trump probably won’t aggressively defend the 1A.
        Clinton will actively shit on it.

        Trump’s conservatism is skin deep. At heart, he’s a nationalist liberal with more money than sense.
        Clinton’s liberalism is skin deep. At heart, she’s a manipulative self-serving career criminal.

        1. Trump has declared openly that he wants to reduce the restrictions on slander/libel/defamation litigation when applied to public figures, to achieve greater parity with the European equivalent of “freedom of speech”.

          So, no… I think he’ll shit on 1A also. 2A remains to be seen… he does spew talking points about “The privileged have armed guards with automatic weapons around them” frequently, but as far as I know has not criticized the NYC carry permit process he had to buy his way through.

          1. Trump has declared openly that he wants to reduce the restrictions on slander/libel/defamation litigation when applied to public figures, to achieve greater parity with the European equivalent of “freedom of speech” Constitution, that has individual’s freedom of speech in the same sentence and context as freedom of the press, not in some special category
            There: FIFY.

      2. @ykw:

        Seriously, this is a genuine question. Trump goes where the populist winds blow him, so he might be weak on the 2A when in office. Clinton has said that the Heller ruling was in error and has stated on numerous occasions that she does not believe that the 2A protects individual gun ownership. Trump might flex on gun rights, but eliminating or severely limiting private gun ownership is a stated objective of the Clinton presidency. How is Trump a bigger threat to the 2A in your opinion than Clinton?

        1. I don’t think he’s a bigger threat to the 2A, just that there’s not much difference between them in practice on the issue. And that’s the primary straw that Trumpists are grasping to convince people he’s better.

          1. Ok, so maybe they’re equally bad? Trump would gut the 2A if it becomes politically expedient while Clinton will say the things gun grabbers want to hear but be more apt to compromise in office? Again, serious question. I’m not voting for either and I know one of them is going to win, and I’m trying to find the silver lining behind the cloud.

      3. If its another Alahu Akbar moment, Muslims will go before guns.

        If its another shoot-em up insane liberal, we may go back to mental institutions before guns.

  13. I really don’t know who is the less of two evils this go around.

    My money is on the rich, white male who could actually be held accountable for his actions because 1) the MSM is against him 2) the opposition party is against him 3) his own party is against him.

    1. This. I may vote for Trump as he makes DC politicos crap their pants. Also would think it would send a message to the elitists (though they probably won’t develop any awareness)

      1. And what Rebel Scum didn’t mention is that the deep state (aka, the huge behemoth Federal Bureaucracy) will not work as hard to punish Trump’s enemies, or to enact his policies as they would for Hillary Clinton, since they agree with Hillary that their job is to punish all of the “Deplorables” and “Irreedemables”.

    2. 1. They won’t be if he governs as a liberal (likely)
      2. See #1
      3. They were only against him when it looked like he had no chance of winning

  14. “””””All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.””””

    Aren’t foreigners subject to the jurisdiction of their own governments?

    1. Also I find it funny that open border “libertarian” suddenly find being born on US soil to be so important.

      1. Suddenly that imaginary line on a map becomes oh so important.

    2. Not while they’re in the US. And it doesn’t matter anyway, what matters is whether they’re subject to the jurisdiction of the US.

    3. Uh, no. Not outside that government’s borders. The United States is pretty unique in the world with both demanding a cut of all your income no matter where its earned (or where you actually reside) and insisting that its laws apply to US citizens inside other jurisdictions (or even completely outside *everyone’s* jusrisdiction).

  15. Any pol who supports firearms but attacks other liberties is just making empty threats

    1. GayJay says you have no right to own a bazooka or machine gun. He is for legalizing the pot.

  16. By titling article as “The Real Threat to the Constitution Is Trump”, this implies Hillary is not a real threat to the constitution….ummm?

    And then to follow it up with “No amendment is safe”….what is with the hyperbole?

    Sometimes me thinks Reason writers write like this to try and get in with the cool group. As if they do, then they will finally be accepted. Of course in reality, ass kissing garners no respect

    1. Trump – Treats the Constitution as a dead letter
      Clinton – Outright disdain for the Constitution

      Both choices suck. Chapman is a DNC shill posing as a libertarian. Always has been.

    2. I tried not to go there but, yeah.

      She has vowed to overturn Citizens United, crush news organizations that have no right to exist and prosecute blasphemers. She has vowed to take executive actions to crush second amendment rights if congress won’t act. She has no respect whatsoever for the rule of law and thinks she is above the law. She is going to appoint SC justices that will agree with her on ever point and no doubt lean to the ‘hate speech isnt free speech’ mentality and the ‘You didn’t build that’ mentality…proggies to the core. The MSM will carry her water every step of the way and she will be unimpeachable. With Trump out of the picture the pathetic R establishment will give her everything she wants just like they did for Obumbles.

      She would be a disaster for liberty in ways Obumbles could only dream of. We will be full bore banana republic. But Trump is the real threat.

      Chapman makes me sick. He is a pathetic lickspittle, forked tounge sycophant. His ilk is absolutely devoid of any shred of honesty or integrity.

      1. No need to sugar coat it, Suthen, tell us what you really think.

      2. Why do you think Trump would be any better?

        I trust him as far as I can throw him when it comes to SCOTUS nominations. Somebody else handed him a list of judges he’d never heard of, he read it on TV, and now he’s a steadfast conservative in you people’s minds. Unbelievable.

        The ONLY thing that would make Trump better would be that the media would oppose him, at least at first. But if he betrays us, they’d turn on a dime and support him like they did Bush with the immigration reform and bailouts.

        1. The only reasons Trump would be better is that the D’s in Congress and the MSM would be all over him for every thing he does. Even if he was working to extend their agenda they’d stonewall him because there’s no way in hell a Democrat is going to let a Republican take credit.

          Oh, and Trump hasn’t yet actually gotten us involved in multiple shooting wars in the Middle East.

          Other than that – nothing. That’s why I’m voting for Johnson. It ain’t been a great choice since Reagan and last time I voted Romney ‘to keep Obama from a 2nd term’. Look how well that turned out. Not going to hold my nose ‘for strategy’ this time around.

          Even if Johnson isn’t a good libertarian, he’s sufficiently mainstream to show that we aren’t all kooks and is opening up the field for a better challenger come 2020 (and later).

        2. We don’t think he’d be better. Its just there is a chance he won’t be catastrophic.

          There is no chance to avoid catastrophe with Hillary….

    3. No amendment is safe? Don’t be silly. That Third Amendment is standing strong. Nobody’s tried to park a Hessian in my spare bedroom lately.

  17. Let’s ignore the candidate that literally sold WH access for cash while First Lady. Who literally stole furnishings from the WH when she left. Who literally lied about being shot at by snipers. Who deliberately evaded oversight while SOS so she could commingle official business with private foundation business to get rich. Who has declared she will make overturning a big section of the 1A a litmus test for judges. Who has declared her open hostility to the 2A. Who has participated, and gloated over, the overthrow of a government and the assassination it’s head of state while running guns into that and other countries thus destabilizing an entire region. And who has directly participated in the planning and execution of extrajudicial assassinations of American citizens never even charged with a crime.

    Yeah, let’s ignore her because the other candidate is a blustering New Yorker that threatens your fragile fucking sensibilities and might just topple the fucked up and bankrupting two party oligarchy that has damn near run our nation into the ground.

    1. TL/DR: fuck you, Chapman.

    2. The libertarian case for Hillary!

      Seriously, if nothing else, so-called libertarians ought to at least be cognizant of the fact that Hillary will be enabled by congress, the bureaucracy, and the media, while Trump will be opposed by all three. That right there tells you who will be more dangerous to the constitution and the rule of law.

      1. “while Trump will be opposed by all three”

        Trump will not be opposed by Congress, at least. Congress will roll over to whatever Trump demands. We saw that in the 2000’s when the Republican Congress rolled over to Bush’s big-government conservatism. If Trump wins, the R’s in Congress will convince themselves that Trumpism is the wave of the future and that they should hop on board. Heck, a great many of them already have.

        Will Trump be opposed by the bureaucracy? Probably. But, guess who would be in charge of the bureaucracy…

        And Trump has not yet demonstrated that he cares at all about being opposed by the media. Not sure why being opposed by the media would slow him down at all if he became president.

        1. If we’d only be so lucky as to have somebody in charge of the bureaucracy that wants to dismantle much of it in an attempt to spur economic growth.

          Instead of, you know, the candidate that wants to expand it in ways Obama didn’t even imagine.

          1. “If we’d only be so lucky as to have somebody in charge of the bureaucracy that wants to dismantle much of it in an attempt to spur economic growth.”

            Which candidate wants to “dismantle much of it”? I think you are projecting your hopes onto Trump instead of seeing what he has actually said.

            My view is that Trump is fine with a big bureaucracy as long as it serves his interests.

            1. Oh, so,you’re ready to trust him when he says he would like to continue some Obama policies like drone strikes but you don’t trust him when he says he wants to abolish much of the regulatory apparatus to spur business.

              Can you kindly explain your reasoning behind this bulletproof logic?

            2. Trump on regulations in energy sector.

              Trump on more regulations

              Or do you not trust what he says here but trust what he says about immigration? If so, kindly explain why.

              1. I don’t trust what he says on anything. He will do whatever gets him power and attention at that moment.

                And of course that can be turned around in the case of Hillary — if you don’t trust that she set up the email server just for convenience, why do you trust her when she says she wants to repeal Citizens United and institute gun control?

                1. Because she only said one of those things to avoid being criminally prosecuted.

    3. Nobody’s disputing Hillary is scum. The question is whether Trump would be any better in practice.

      Trump’s never been in a position to do the horrible things Hillary has done, so the fact that he hasn’t is no proof that he wouldn’t. Given his amoral behavior in his own sphere, it seems likely that he would.

      1. Define “amoral”. Seriously. What the fuck has he done that was so professionally immoral (unethical is probably what you’re looking for) as to equate it with “we came, we saw, he died…[cackle]” or participating in the assassination of American citizens never charged with a crime.

        The pants-shitting is starting to become pungent.

      2. Aha. So you are Chapman. I remember that abortion of an article.

        We know Cankles is horrible but Trump might be; vote Cankles.

      3. “Trump’s never been in a position to do the horrible things Hillary has done, so the fact that he hasn’t is no proof that he wouldn’t. ”

        +1 to THIS. It is absurd the number of people who make arguments like, Trump is better because “Trump never killed an ambassador”. WTF? Trump’s never been in a position to preside over ambassadors, let alone have a seat of power in the institution with the legal monopoly on violence.

        1. Ok. You’ve got to sit in the back seat of a Kia with one of two dogs. You’ve seen one dog bite several people. You’ve heard the other dog bark at people. Which dog do you want to sit next to for an hour?

          1. Dogs? I thought the lame analogies were supposed to involve Skittles.

            1. So…ducking the question. Let me guess, you’re voting for Clinton.

          2. My first instinct would be to beat the shit out of the fuckers who put me in that situation.

        2. Meanwhile his opponent has and definitely acted on that “authority” in ways that would make any self-respecting libertarian puke.

          But Trump might do the same things she did if he’s elected. Therefore he’s a worse alternative.


          1. It’s not a matter of might, it’s a matter of “probably would”.

            Most of the stuff that Hillary is attacked for around here comes down to carelessness, incompetence, and negligence. Benghazi, the classified emails, etc. What makes you think that Trump would be any more careful or competent? He’s a vapid egotist, much like Obama.

            1. Most of the stuff that Hillary is attacked for around here comes down to carelessness, incompetence, and negligence. Benghazi, the classified emails, etc. What makes you think that Trump would be any more careful or competent? He’s a vapid egotist, much like Obama.

              Yes, she carelessly set up her own server and refused to even let the State Dept issue her an email address or secure laptop.

              What makes you think that Trump would be any more careful or competent?

              Not sure. Where are the FBI files on his national security investigation and what did he say when the FBI called him in to,question his use of….oh that’s right. He was never investigated by the FBI.

              1. Yes, she carelessly set up her own server and refused to even let the State Dept issue her an email address or secure laptop.

                That’s not what I said. I was talking about the classified email stuff (which was almost certainly unintentional on Hillary’s part) and the Benghazi affair. Setting up the server to evade records laws was a sin of commission, but what makes you think Trump wouldn’t do something to evade the law too?

                And you’re back to saying Trump is better because he never violated public records laws while Secretary of State.

                1. ykw

                  Cankles: “I only used a private server because I wanted the convience to use one device.”

                  FBI: She used a Blackberry, an IPad, and an IPhone all at the same time. But, it’s OK.

                  Huma’s email: “This retarded lackwit can’t figure out how to do email on a computer, so she needs her Blackberry.”

                  Cankles: “I turned over all my emails”.

                  FBI: Correct, except for the *cough*33000*cough* you didn’t give us. But, I like my job, so it’s cool…

                  Cankles: “I only deleted the personal ones about Diane Reynolds’ Chelsea’s wedding and yoga.”

                  Judicial Watch: Except for these thousands we managed to recover that discuss national security and appointing Foundation donors to Ambassador positions because of their donations.

                  Cankles: “I thought the (c) in all those emails was a ‘bullet point’ in a list”.

                  FBI: You signed this document in 2009 indicating you were trained in handling classified info.

                  Cankles: “I fell down in 2012- and I just don’t know anything nowadays. And, I didn’t really pay attention…”

                  FBI: I can live with that, because I really like my job.

                  Obumbles: “I didn’t learn about Hillary’s private server until seeing it on the news in 2015”

                  Huma’s email: “Why aren’t these emails we got from Obama’s fake name on our private server in 2012 classified?”

                  FBI: Lol-whut? I already said I like my fucking job. You’re all good!

                  Cankles: “I was thoroughly investigated by the FBI, and was proven innocent on all charges,”

            2. Hill’s job for the last 20 years has been politics and this is her legacy. Trump’s job has been decidedly different and while we may disagree on some of the ethics, his legacy shows competence and success.

              You can not argue he is an incompetent idiot who will make bad choices when the last 20 years of business practice doesn’t bear that out.

            3. ‘Probably would’ – even taking ‘definitely would’ – that only makes him *as bad* as her. Neither have any other positive traits.

              Even assuming that Trump would do all these horrible things – so will she. So where’s the advantage to voting Clinton over Trump? At least Trump has the veneer of anti-establishmentism. A vote for him is, at the margin, a vote that says you aren’t satisfied with the status quo (which Clinton represents) even if, in reality, Trump is a system man through-and-through.

      4. There is one thing about a Trump presidency (not Trump himself) that would be incalculably better – the media would actually go after the sonofabitch rather than licking boots the way they will with Hillary. There would be absolutely zero accountability in a Hillary presidency, but there would be plenty with Trump.

    4. I wanted to include all of that in my comment above but if we tried to spell out everything wrong with Hillary it would max out the character limit on about 50 postings.

      She is just horrible in every respect. She is unqualified for the office in so many ways it is breathtaking.

      There is not one single good reason to elect her. Not. One.

      1. She has fucking disqualified herself.

        She is a demonstrated threat to national security.

        She can never be issued a security clearance level above cafeteria dish washer.

        She has been bought by all the worst foreign governments and international shysters.
        Every decision she makes will be driven by who paid her and the welfare of the nation will never be considered.

        She is corruption incarnate.
        It is inconceivable that she could be POTUS.

        1. She can never be issued a security clearance level above cafeteria dish washer.

          It is unkind of you to besmirch the good name of honest dish washers.

        2. She can never be issued a security clearance level above cafeteria dish washer.

          True, but note that the IC was far more worried about briefing Trump than her. What does that say?

          1. What does that say?

            It doesn’t really say anything at all. What elements of “the IC” expressed this reservation, and how did they go about expressing it?


              Then there’s the fact that he immediately started talking about the content of his first intel briefing on the campaign trail.

              1. Most of the officials asked for anonymity to discuss a domestic political issue.

                Yeah, okay. Sounds legit.

          2. That the IC is a partisan appointed by the current president who just happens to be out campaigning on Hillary Clinton’s behalf?

            1. No kidding, right. Hey, ykw, if you pull your head out of your ass, you’ll find that your question answers itself.

            2. The rank and file sure as hell isn’t.

              1. The rank and file sure as hell isn’t.

                A cadre of “anonymous, senior” media courtiers is not “rank and file”.

      2. The only reasonable argument for Hilary [sic] is that she isn’t Trump. Sadly, the only reasonable argument for Trump is that he isn’t Hilary.

    5. Forget the commingling of official and private business; she was blatantly flouting every law, policy, and regulation governing the protection of sensitive and classified information. The list of laws she followed would be far shorter than the list of laws she’s broken or skirted.

      1. And Trump wouldn’t?

        1. … what are you even responding to?

        2. “And Trump wouldn’t?”

          Shut the fuck up, Donny.

        3. Hasn’t > Wouldn’t

    6. It’s not his “fragile fucking sensibilities” that he sees as threatened. It’s the super-freedom he, and the others, who call themselves “journalists”, want to maintain to be able to make shit up about some “public figure” and get away with it.
      All else must be sacrificed to keep that going.

  18. The way I see it:

    Trump is ignorant of the Constitution.
    Hillary is hostile to the Constitution.

    Both are dangerous to the Constitution, but for different reasons.

    1. One far more so than the other.

      One will be slapped down, the other facilitated. That is a pretty big difference.

      1. “One will be slapped down, the other facilitated.”

        You mean Trump would be slapped down? Who exactly would be doing the “slapping” of Trump’s ignorant unconstitutional proposals? The judges that he selects? A Congress that will roll over to whatever the executive proposes?

        1. Um, you,do realize he doesn’t get to fire the entire judiciary and replace them with his own appointees, don’t you? At best he’d get to replace 15-20% of the federal judicial slots currently occupied. And that’s IF he’s able to get his nominees confirmed.

          1. “At best he’d get to replace 15-20% of the federal judicial slots currently occupied. And that’s IF he’s able to get his nominees confirmed.”

            His nominees would be confirmed, because the Senate rubberstamps the President’s picks in all but a small handful of cases. The only ones that matter are the ones for SCOTUS anyway.

            When was the last time the President didn’t get his pick for SCOTUS confirmed by the Senate? It was Bork in 1987. Ever since then, the Senate has been a rubber stamp.

            Where does this idea come from that Congress has some sort of spine?

            1. Harriet Meyers says “what”.

              Hell, for that matter, so does Merrill Garland.

              1. Bush withdrew Harriet Myers’ name from consideration. The Senate did not vote her down.

                If Bush had pressed forward with the nomination I am willing to bet that she would have been confirmed. Because party. And because optics.

                Merrick Garland is not being considered ONLY because it’s an election year. Next year is not an election year. And if he had an up-or-down vote in the Senate, right now, are you optimistic that he wouldn’t be confirmed?

                Once again, other than Bork, name the last SCOTUS nominee to be voted down by Congress.

                1. Move the goalposts much?

                  You said “When was the last time the President didn’t get his pick for SCOTUS confirmed by the Senate?

                  Now you say Bork was the last one to get voted down. Which is it?

                  1. Okay I was sloppy in my wording. What I meant was, “When was the last time the President didn’t get his pick for SCOTUS confirmed by the Senate when the Senate actually held a vote on the nominee?”

                    I still contend a Republican Senate will not vote down a Trump nominee for SCOTUS.

                2. Gonna have to agree with sloopy here — common practice is to withdraw the nom if the votes aren’t there rather than have a nominee rejected.

          2. The Obama appointees would still go along with him so long as he’s increasing the power of government.

        2. I don’t see congress rolling over for him as the R establishment is actively campaigning against him as we speak. If he appoints people to the court half as qualified as he says he will, then yeah, they will too. I certainly don’t see the MSM carrying his water. They are going to crawl up his ass with a microscope every time he farts.

          Mind you Jeff, I am not disagreeing with you. I just think it is important to make a distinction when the difference is so great.

          1. “I don’t see congress rolling over for him as the R establishment is actively campaigning against him as we speak.”

            What? Most of the R Establishment has cravenly jumped on board the Trump Train as their meal ticket to continued power. If Trump wins they will give him most everything he wants. Maybe they will make a show of opposing one or two things “on principle” but he will get 99% of it. The few people who aren’t, like Sasse and Mike Lee, are insignificant in number. Even Ted Cruz jumped on board FFS.

            “If he appoints people to the court half as qualified as he says he will, then yeah, they will too.”

            He will appoint judges who agree with him, just like every other president does. He’s not stupid. If he thinks that the police deserve greater search powers, he will appoint judges who agrees with him on that while superficially checking all of the other “staunch conservative” boxes.

        3. A Congress that will roll over to whatever the executive proposes?

          You keep saying this. What would convince you that the Republican leadership won’t drag their heels if not actively oppose him in office? The party leadership had to be dragged kicking and screaming into accepting him as the nominee. There was a revolt on the convention floor. They’re floating a “spoiler” alternative candidate in Evan McMullin with the specific purpose of taking votes from Trump while still supporting the party. Most of the Congresscritters who’ve endorsed him have done so either implying or openly saying that it’s solely because they need to beat Hillary. How does this translate to a rollover Congress exactly?

  19. If there is anything clear from his tweets and speeches, it’s that he has no more regard for the Constitution than he does for the creditors he stiffed in his many bankruptcies

    Wealth envy from a “libertarian” writer?

    Did he “stiff” creditors or did independent divisions of his parent company, legally set us as separate entities under US law, file bankruptcy because they failed? You know, just like every responsible businessperson in America has set up a conglomerate since BK laws were enshrined here.

    Chapman, you’re a disgusting fucking joke.

    1. About this; bringing up some sort of lefty faux-moral outrage in the context of corporate default is nothing more than double-digit-audience pandering. Argumentum ad passiones is huff-po level garbage; why does it appear on Reason is absolutely beyond me.

      1. *double-digit-iq-audience, that is.

  20. I partially agree with Chapman (gasp!) because he’s right about Trump, but obviously he’s also being super dishonest by insinuating Trump is uniquely disdainful of the Constitution. Obama’s record of being overruled on constitutional grounds is historically awful. And Clinton has a laundry list of her own about what amendments she disdains.

    I’m perfectly open to voting Republican if they respect the Constitution. This year that’s not really an option for me.

    1. Doesn’t Obumbles hold the record for 9-0 rulings against him? And that is with two of his appointees on the court.

  21. What makes them [Trumpistas] so sure [he will nominate true conservatives]?

    Oh, obviously his peincipled and unwavering respect for the Constitution and the individual rights it purports to protect from people like him, of course! What else?

  22. OT, mostly – Joe in Lowell hardest hit, while Chicago laughs……..-colorado/

    1. I wonder which party they voted for…

  23. Trump is a populist. That can be dangerous, in a way, sure. Clinton, on the other hand, has a proven track record of not just shitting all over the Constitution but of displaying flagrant disregard for the law. She was a lethally incompetent Sec. of State and doesn’t even have the self-awareness to recognize how badly she screwed up. And because she’s a Clinton and a Democrat, there’s no way an impeachment will be successful.

    Now, both candidates have said things that imply they’ll disregard a Constitutional right or three, but only one has the pull to be able to do it without fear of any of those nasty checks and/or balances coming into play. So, tell me why Trump’s the bigger threat to the Constitution.

  24. DIdn’t read. Chapman is a moron.

    Clinton is a proven threat to the constitution over the course of 30 years. Trump may or may not be, it is nothing but pants-shitting conjecture at this point.

    If Trump picks the SC like he says he is going to, he may be the biggest boon to the constitution in our lifetimes. Clinton will gut the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and whatever is left of the 9th and 10th Amendments, it is pretty much guaranteed.

    1. Thank you.

  25. But the president has no power to do any of these things, and the majority of Republican senators vocally disagree with Trump on half of these issues and who would not be hesitant to impeach the man, so he is actually no threat at all for most of these idiotic things he says.

    1. “and the majority of Republican senators vocally disagree with Trump on half of these issues and who would not be hesitant to impeach the man,”

      When was the last time a Congress impeached a president of the same party? Or even came close to it? Or even thought about it?

      1. Nixon was threatened with impeachment by the GOP House. Andrew Johnson was also impeached by his own party.

        1. The House was controlled by Democrats in the 1970’s.

          Andrew Johnson was a Democrat, not a Republican.

          try again.

          1. You’re right about the house in 1973. though the GOP was going along with the impeachment and that’s what made Nixon resign.

            Johnson was Abe Lincoln’s VP, thus a Republican.


              Andrew Johnson (December 29, 1808 ? July 31, 1875) was the 17th President of the United States, serving from 1865 to 1869. Johnson became president as he was vice president at the time of the assassination of Abraham Lincoln. A Democrat who ran with Lincoln on the National Union ticket, Johnson came to office as the Civil War concluded.

              1. Well that’s fucked up. What kind of Republican was this Lincoln guy.

            2. Johnson was Abe Lincoln’s VP, thus a Republican.

              This is inaccurate at best. Johnson was a War Democrat, and the NU split back into D/R camps by the time impeachment rolled around.

      2. Never, but Trump is indeed a historical anomaly. I’m pretty sure almost every sitting Republican congressman would much rather have Mike Pence than Donald Trump as president.

        1. “I’m pretty sure almost every sitting Republican congressman would much rather have Mike Pence than Donald Trump as president.”

          Even if that is true, it’s irrelevant, because if they did impeach and remove Trump, they would themselves lose their own jobs in the next election as they are swept from power.

          This is what happened with Nixon in the 70’s. After he resigned, Democrats swept into power at all levels.

          Because Trump voters would punish the R’s by staying home, and it’s pretty easy for Democrats to make the case of “do you really want to vote for the party that pulled so much crap that even other R’s impeached their leader?”

          1. I think that’s a proper read of the political fallout from a Trump impeachment. The more likely outcome is that Republican leadership and its lackeys in Congress ally with a united Democratic party to issue veto-proof bills where Congress reclaims some of the powers it spent the last 100 years giving to the executive branch simply to spite Trump.

            That’s the best case scenario for libertarians over the next 4 years, though one that is also highly unlikely. I can’t imagine a similar scenario unfolding in a Hillary presidency. Simply put, Democrats are far more loyal to the Party and its leadership than Republican voters and elected officials are.

        2. Democrats would rather have Trump as president than Pence. By a country mile.

  26. Jose Fernandez and Arnold Palmer die on the same freaking day, and Steve Chapman still blights humanity with his existence.

    The deities are truly angry at us all.

  27. All this ranting is getting kind of tedious. I think we have all made our cases numerous times. Aside from the Chapman types I don’t see either side as irrational or dishonest.

    I will make a prediction:

    Cankles dishonesty and disregard for the rule of law is going to sink her. Trump’s perceived anti-establishment, anti-PC stance will put him in office.

    Some of the anti-Trump people’s fears will be realized but not that many. Some of the anti-Clinton people’s predictions will come true but not as many as they would like.

    Nearly everyone, including the handful of pro-Trump and some of the pro-Cankles people around here would be ecstatic to vote for Paul were he still in the race.

    1. Well we’re screwed either way. For the long term future of the GOP, a Trump victory is a disaster, because it makes the party swing in the direction of his right-wing socialism and away from limited government.

      My prediction: the polls stay close the rest of the way with large numbers of undecided. the undecideds are mostly just dreading the prospect of having to choose between the two, but are going to break 2-1 for Hillary on election day, giving her a 50-46 popular vote victory, and the third-party vote is going to go down to slightly above normal levels, 4% or so.

      Johnson limps away with 2.5% and Reason declares him the greatest libertarian candidate ever, lol.

      1. So basically the exact opposite of the Brexit effect? Even with polling orgs inordinately weighing Dems in their samples (relative to current polls asking people to self-identify party affiliation) you expect her to move up 6-7 points from where she is now?

        That’s just not possible. Not in a real world where only living, registered voters participate.

      2. WTH is right wing socialism?

  28. You don’t have much of a constitution to worry about Chapman,. You fucking disingenuous fuck.

  29. The thing is, Hillary is the bigger threat. She’s also the threat we are used to; the creeping slime of Progressive Paternalistic Bullshit. Trump is something we haven’t seen in a while, so it’s easy to think of him as something startling.

    Trump will have a hotel press and a hostile Congress to deal with. He may be able to get some things done anyway, but he won’t have anything like the sycophantic slobbering Hillary would get.

    And I’m not going to vote for any third party candidate UNTIL that third party has some presence in Congress. I lived through Jimmy Carter’s Presidency. I know what an administration with no allies in Congress is like, and have no desire to see it again.

    Libertarians; win some Congressional seats, and then go for the Presidency. Or admit you aren’t serious.

  30. I started to get upset and then I saw it was Chapman, the stupidest columnist on Reason and one of the stupidest on the interweb. You keep being you Chapman, and by that I mean keep being a Hillary munching leftist partisan that Reason keeps publishing for some unfathomable reason.

  31. AGAIN, Trump and Clinton are SYMPTOMS that the establishment has led us into fiscal/monetary/economic hell and it’s only going to get worse. Instead of talking about how to approach this long term, “libertarians” are fighting over whether to put a vampire into office, or werewolf. THAT’S NOT THE POINT, and in the short term it makes no difference. Emerging into liberty has to go through the consequent “dark valley” to get out of the 100 years of asinine public policy that now has us where we are at. We are basically bankrupt and a hundred and fifty MILLION people (at least) have their affairs so out of whack, and are purely afraid, that they are radicalized. Regardless of who gets elected, that radicalization will only deepen, economic/monetary/fiscal policies will only crumble even more. The jet airliner is crashing from 35,000 feet and we’re bickering over details that make no difference. A full can of diet coke versus a half can and a second bag of peanuts is pointless. The “lesser of two evils” shipped sailed circa 2003. Any notion of working this out supporting the establishment is ignorant. Ramming the establishment with an outsider MAY speed up the inevitable, but collapse is coming, it’s just a matter of when.

  32. Oh, look- Chapman is having a panic attack.

  33. Just read Scott Adams’ blog to get a understanding of Trump:

    Trump always takes the extreme position on matters of safety and security for the country, even if those positions are unconstitutional, impractical, evil, or something that the military would refuse to do. Normal people see this as a dangerous situation. Trained persuaders like me see this as something called pacing and leading. Trump “paces” the public ? meaning he matches them in their emotional state, and then some. He does that with his extreme responses on immigration, fighting ISIS, stop-and-frisk, etc. Once Trump has established himself as the biggest bad-ass on the topic, he is free to “lead,” which we see him do by softening his deportation stand, limiting his stop-and-frisk comment to Chicago, reversing his first answer on penalties for abortion, and so on. If you are not trained in persuasion, Trump look scary. If you understand pacing and leading, you might see him as the safest candidate who has ever gotten this close to the presidency. That’s how I see him.…..clinton-to

    1. its called deal making which he does for a living. If I have a car to sell I want $100k for it the Buyer says he will pay $50k . the two will work to some point in the middle. its been done this way forever its called bartering

  34. It probably won’t make much difference who is elected with respect to nominees for the Supreme Court or abuse of executive power. Trump’s court picks, like Clinton’s, would be Merrick Garland clones i.e. advocates of judicial restraint which means that no law passed in a procedurally correct way will be overturned.

    Face it, for the foreseeable future, the Supreme Court will rubber stamp any atrocity committed by legislatures.

  35. Who would be worse? Hillary or Donald? On questions of principle they are tied for worst. In practical terms probably Hillary because the media will endorse everything she does while they will attack Trump for breathing.

    “Today, the Goddess of the Potomac magnificently defied the misogynistic white male racist scum in Congress and implemented full censorship of hateful political speech by executive order”.

    “Today, the billionaire buffoon in the White House, attempted to silence the press and was quickly rebuffed by hard working Democrats in congress led by brilliant and beautiful Elizabeth Warren”.

  36. Except “undocumented immigrants” and foreign terrorists are not citizens and therefore have no constitutional rights.

  37. I must have missed the part of the Constitution where the President gets to delete anything in the Bill of Rights he disagrees with. Can somebody point out that part? Yeah, they can cause trouble, and we’ll have to go to court to sort it out. Trump isn’t actively against the Second Amendment, and I’m pretty sure his kids support gun rights, so there’s that. They’ll have his ear. Bill Clinton’s crooked wife on the other hand is openly hostile to the First and Second amendments. Easy choice for me. Not because I think Trump is the guy for the job, but because he’s the least offensive of the two.

    1. But Jima! Read the article! It says this about The Donald…

      “He knows as much about the Constitution as he does about taxidermy.”

      The Donald DOES know at least enough about taxidermy, such that He has shot and skinned fer Himself (or hadf His flunkies do it, so He could say that He did it), a mutated, orange-haired baboon, so as to fashion His wig out of it’s fur. If’n we elect The Donald, prepare for ALL of us to be skinned fer His Newest Wigs!

      If’s THAT don’t “wig you out”, ah haz no idears WHUT is goin’ on hear… Hear! Hear!

  38. At least, thanks to bylines, I know I can stop reading an article with such a ridiculous headline as soon as I see it’s Chapman.

  39. Obama has effectively destroyed the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th amendments and is closing in on destroying the 2nd and most of the 1st. Let’s hope Queen Hillary doesn’t demand we vacate our homes for the army.

  40. RE: The Real Threat to the Constitution Is Trump
    No amendment is safe.

    I sure am glad I invested in all those jackboots and brown shirts.

  41. Steve Chapman, Liberal-tarian. Reason is back-side promoting soaialist/statist/corruptocrat Clinton rather than actually going whole hog for their own candidates. Libertarian contributors should ask for a refund.

    No, I am not a Trump fan.

  42. It is true that we do not know what kind of choice Trump would make for the SCOTUS but we certainly know the type Hillary would choose.

  43. like Lucille said I cannot believe that some one able to earn in four weeks on the internet
    see more at———–>>>

  44. Really Nice Post. Thanks for sharing with us.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.