Donald Trump

Constitutional Originalists Against Trump

Why top libertarian and conservative legal scholars oppose the GOP candidate.

|

Gage Skidmore / Flickr.com

Today a group of 29 leading libertarian and conservative advocates of constitutional originalism signed their names to a statement titled "Originalists Against Trump." It begins, "We, the undersigned lawyers and scholars, are committed to the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States. We write to oppose the election of Donald Trump."

There are some impressive names on this list. Among them are Northwestern law professor Steven Calabresi, one of the original founders of the Federalist Society; Case Western Reserve law professor Jonathan Adler, one of the intellectual architects behind the 2015 Obamacare legal challenge in King v. Burwell; and New York University law professor Richard Epstein, author of the highly influential 1985 book Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain.

Why do they oppose Trump? Here's what they have to say:

Trump's long record of statements and conduct, in his campaign and in his business career, have shown him indifferent or hostile to the Constitution's basic features—including a government of limited powers, an independent judiciary, religious liberty, freedom of speech, and due process of law.

But what about the Supreme Court?

We also understand the argument that Trump will nominate qualified judicial candidates who will themselves be committed to the Constitution and the rule of law. Notwithstanding those he has already named, we do not trust him to do so. More importantly, we do not trust him to respect constitutional limits in the rest of his conduct in office, of which judicial nominations are only one part.

But what about Hillary Clinton?

We are under no illusions about the choices posed by this election—or about whether Hillary Clinton, were she elected, would be any friend to originalism. Yet our country's commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court. Originalism has faced setbacks before; it has recovered. Whoever wins in November, it will do so again.

Originalism is a commitment to the Constitution, not to any one political party. And not every person who professes support for originalism is therefore prepared to be President. We happen to see Trump as uniquely unsuited to the office, and we will not be voting for him.

Read the complete statement here.

There is one name that I was surprised to find missing from the "Originalists Against Trump" list. That's the name of Alan Gura. Gura is perhaps the single most influential originalist lawyer at work in America today. In 2008 Gura argued and won District of Columbia v. Heller, the landmark Supreme Court case in which the Second Amendment was recognized as an individual right. Two years later, Gura argued and won McDonald v. City of Chicago, the landmark Supreme Court case in which the Second Amendment was applied against the states via the 14th Amendment. And, to say the least, Gura is no fan of Trump. Here's a snippet of what Gura recently told me about whether or not SCOTUS is a good reason to support the GOP candidate:

Donald Trump has effectively identified the horrific prospect of Hillary Clinton appointing at least one and perhaps several Supreme Court justices, to say nothing of the lower courts. But shall we entrust that task to an insecure lunatic, a fascist caudillo, an autarkist, a proud ignoramous and conspiracy theorist, the aspiring leader of a "Workers' Party" who plays footsie with racists and anti-Semites and might well be a Russian agent? I have no illusions about what Hillary would do to the federal bench. Sad! But there is something deeply contradictory about the notion of electing a power-hungry strongman on the theory that he'll appoint judges that respect and enforce constitutional limits on government. Did Hugo Chavez appoint great judges? Did Putin, Mussolini, or Erdogan? Would it have mattered had they sort-of kinda suggested that they would?

Related: My thoughts on why Trump can't be trusted on Supreme Court appointments.

Update: Alan Gura is now a signatory to the "Originalists Against Trump" statement.

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.

129 responses to “Constitutional Originalists Against Trump

  1. “We, the undersigned lawyers and scholars, are committed to the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States. We write to oppose the election of Donald Trump.”

    Salon headline:

    Racists Oppose Trump Because He’s Not Racist Enough!

    1. My Co-Worker’s step-sister made $14285 the previous week. She gets paid on the laptop and moved in a $557000 condo. All she did was get blessed and apply the guide leaked on this web site. Browse this site….
      This is what I do… http://www.Trends88.Com

    2. I Make up to $90 an hour working from my home. My story is that I quit working at Walmart to work online and with a little effort I easily bring in around $70h to $86h?Go to this website and click tech tab to start your work? Visit this web? http://www.14EarnPath.Com

  2. “Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court.”

    Can, Will.

    1. What commitment?

      1. There certainly is none of that on the left. Their commitment is to destroy it and replace it with TOP.MEN who can rule by fiat.

        1. There isn’t much from the right either. They give plenty of lip service to the constitution and then use it as toilet paper when convenient.

          1. They’re only better in that they will take a little longer to destroy it.

            1. Actually, the difference is that a Republican feels bad when he uses the constitution as toilet paper.

              1. Not if it gets them re-elected.

              2. Not as soft as Charmin?

              3. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link,

                go? to tech tab for work detail,,,,,,, http://www.highpay90.com

          2. The scribblers, academics and think tank pets in that band of “Constitutional Originalists” are another subsidiary of Conservatism Inc. that hasn’t managed to conservative anything while drawing comfortable paychecks for talking together and fondling each others’ position papers.

            If the transportation industry was as good at its job as these guys are as good at theirs, we would have forgotten the wheel by now.

            1. “…fondling each others’ position papers” indeed! They also fondle the Cunts-tit-ution fondly, singing its praises, while wiping their asses with it!

              By now, wiping your ass with it is about the most genuine respect it gets any moah…

              Generally, whatever you like and that I do not like, is UN-Cunts-tit-utional, and vice versa… But only those annointed as judges, have opinions that actually matter! If ya donna believe me, try dragging yer copy of the Cunts-tit-ution into the jury deliberation room sometime…

    2. I find this a more compelling argument in favor of Trump.

      He truly would be “a single administration,” unlike Hillary who will very much be a continuation of the lawless and unconstitutional overreaches of the Obama administration.

      What he changed she would cement in place.

      1. Obama was a continuation of the Bush Administration…

    3. These assholes better focus on stopping Hillary. With her comes a thousand years of darkness and the end of the constitution. Her reign will likely lead to the replacement of the constitution with some horseshit document offering ‘collective rights’ that can be altered at will. We’ve already seen the progs act out bits and pieces of ‘1984’ during Obama’s time. If Hillary gets in the tyranny guitar will go all the way to 11.

  3. Standard Trump Disclaimer: Not voting for the douche.

    That out of the way, originalists were fond of the late Justice Scalia, were they not? Trump has mentioned Scalia by name as a template for the kind of judges he would seek to appoint. I would think they’d be happy that Trump was looking for Scalia types. But as John and others have observed, you can’t believe a word Trump says when it’s something positive. Whenever it’s something negative, his word is gold.

    1. Very good (yet long) article in The Atlantic about a Clinton SCOTUS, pitting the views of Hugh Hewitt against Ilya Somin. I found the discussion of United States vs. Texas most interesting. http://www.theatlantic.com/pol…..rt/501539/

  4. Why top men are against anti-top men candidate.

    1. Astounding. Truly astounding, but I think you’re right.

    2. Is there one of those in the race?

      1. Yeah, I don’t see any reason to think that Trump is any less “top men” than anyone else. He clearly sees himself as a Top Man.

        1. He brags openly about buying political favors and having Washington insiders at his various weddings.

          1. He’s against the current crop of Top Men, though he does seem to believe that any problem can be solved so long as you bring a group of them together and they make a deal.

          2. and Hillary sells those favours, but that’s OK, she has a D after her name.

          3. Well the people who are indisputably Top. Men. are effectively unanimous that a Trump presidency would harm their Top. Manliness.

          4. yes yes yes. But those aren’t the ‘right’ Washington Insiders. All the ‘right’ Washington Insiders are worried they will be cut out of the crony circuit and replaced by other Insiders. The horror.

    3. Trump is far from an anti-top men candidate. Quite the opposite.

  5. Did Hugo Chavez appoint great judges? Did Putin, Mussolini, or Erdogan?

    Are any of those people Americans? Why not tell us why Kim Jong Un is uniquely unsuited to be President of the United States?

    1. People act like political culture matters for nothing. It’s the only thing that matters but it’s malleable and hard to pin down to precise boundaries so people just forget about it. It’s what the English of yore called their “constitution”, the simplest way to explain it is the breadth of people’s willingness to accept a leader, policy or law.

      A person ideologically identical to Muammar Gaddafi could not succeed politically in the United States or in Japan. Benito Mussolini could never get elected in New Hampshire. The same is true of non-elected leaders like despots and monarchs, their style of leadership, their policy positions and actions in office must all remain within the bounds of the political culture or they’ll lose their power. As sick as the US political culture has gotten, it’s nowhere near the point of electing Mussolini and even if it were, Mussolini-style governance would not be tolerated long. Even if the next president were FDR 2.0, his socialist takeovers and nationalizations would scarcely see the light of day before that president was as politically crippled as FDR was cripple crippled.

  6. Clinton won’t be disaster because one person can do only so much damage. Trump who is only one person will be a disaster. Their reasoning seems to have some flaws.

    1. Their reasoning bias seems to have some flaws.

      1. Their flaws seem to have some bias.

        1. Nice!

    2. Clinton is bad, but she’s bad in a way that is the norm in American politics. That’s a scathing indictment of our politics, but, still.

      Trump, OTOH, is amazingly, unbelievably bad. He’s an orange authoritarian who has no principles to violate.

  7. We are under no illusions about the choices posed by this election?or about whether Hillary Clinton, were she elected, would be any friend to originalism.

    But-

    GOOBLE GOBBLE, GOOBLE GOBBLE

    ONE OF US. ONE OF US!

    1. I detect some social signaling around here.

      1. Or it could be that they actually believe what they are saying.

        I have a hard time accepting it sometimes too, but not everyone who disagrees with me is being dishonest.

        1. If they are not dishonest, then they are contradicting themselves in an egregiously idiotic fashion.

          1. Yeah, I guess if they are saying that this disqualifies Trump while not saying anything about Clinton, it’s a bit shady.
            These are perfectly good arguments against Trump. But it does seem to be presented in a way that mostly ignores the perfectly good arguments against Clinton on the same question.

  8. While in congress and as secretary of state Hillary has actually done things to oppose the constitution. But no big deal because Trump says mean things and wants to limit immigration. He must be stopped!!

  9. Notwithstanding those he has already named, we do not trust him to do so.

    Bingo. Trump would trade away a SCOTUS nom in a heartbeat, and there’s no chance enough GOP senators would oppose him. Trump is not a conservative nor is he an ally to conservatives.

    1. “Trump is not a conservative nor is he an ally to conservatives”

      But what about the bad points about Trump?

      1. Point taken, but I’m talking about conservatism in the Burkian sense, in that maybe there’s no profit in not rushing headlong from disaster to legislative disaster a la progressivism. Trump and Clinton are identical in their desire to rule through expedience, but at least the GOP could unite against Clinton as they’ve done against Obama’s pick. Trump, probably not.

    2. Notwithstanding those he has already named, we do not trust him to do so.

      Showing symptoms of TDS here: discount anything he says that is rational, and seize on anything he says that isn’t.

      1. The only plausible argument put forward in defense of Trump is that, despite being inconsistent on every mark other than his opposition to trade, is his SCOTUS pick. I’m not buying it.

    3. If there’s one thing in this universe that I don’t understand, it’s the argument claiming that Trump as president would rule without opposition or limits placed on him by others while Hilary with her political machine and networks of allies and operatives in government, academia and media, would rule as one paralyzed by opposition.

      1. The main upside I see to Trump is that he will likely face lots of opposition and the news media won’t cover for him.

        1. But they’ll definitely lie for Clinton…no matter how awful their credibility gets. They’re pure lickspittles in the mainstream press these days.

          I used to be able to go to alternative press for my news, but unfortunately some of my sources (*cough* Reason *cough*) have decided to drink the “Hillary’s not so bad” Kool-Aid like a bunch of CNN shills.

    4. But muh anti-establishment wack-off fantasy!

  10. shouldn’t the title also include clinton since she is far more likely to be elected and far more likely to abuse and ignore and bypass the legal system

    1. Shhh!!!, we don’t talk about that around here. That’s the wrong social signaling. Trump is Hitler! Hillary…but TRUMP!

      1. When Hillary’s storm troopers come for her enemies, I hope the ones at Reason who voted for Hillary are first.

    2. and far more likely to abuse and ignore and bypass the legal system

      I don’t know. We can probably count on any president to do that at this point.

      1. Thats true and thats why the GOP really hasn’t done anything against Obama or Hillary except put on shows to make it look like they care all the while thinking they will do the same if they ever get the office.

  11. Why top libertarian and conservative legal scholars oppose the GOP candidate.

    Because they think the system isn’t completely broken and can be fixed. All those people who think Hillary getting elected will spell doom for the Republic are idiots – Hillary’s nomination is proof the Republic is already dead. I know there are some Trump supporters (certainly not all of them or even a majority of them and I’d argue not even a very large segment of them) that insist they’re not actually supporting Trump, they’re just supporting whoever isn’t a Washington insider and once Trump’s election proves that the Washington insider establishment can be successfully opposed there’ll be more outsiders running next time and we’ll have better choices for which non-Washington insider establishment candidate we elect President. Trump, in other words, is simply destroying the system and somebody else will have to follow behind and rebuild something better.

    I don’t agree with that assessment simply because there aren’t enough Trump supporters who see it that way and I’m pretty sure Trump doesn’t see it that way either. Trump has no intention of destroying the establishment, he simply intends to use it to the benefit of Trump. But one way or another things that can’t go on forever don’t and history suggests there’s only one way the old established order gets overturned and that way involves bloodshed. I think Hillary may be the last straw and fighting it only delays the inevitable.

    1. One benefit of Trump, if it’s the only one, is that the media will check him 24/7, whereas they will give Hillary a free pass, no matter what she does. If a Republican is in office, the left will suddenly oppose war again.

      The benefit of Hillary is that she probably will destroy what trust is left in government in epic fashion. And a GOP congress will not check her or oppose anything she does. Unless we’re talking about a hand full of Republicans who don’t have the numbers to do anything about it.

      1. “And a GOP congress will not check her or oppose anything she does.”

        Just like the GOP Congress “gave Obama everything he wanted”, amirite?

        http://thefederalist.com/2016/…..yone-says/

  12. Well, anyone who can seriously believe that Hillary isn’t at least as big a threat to the Constitution, given her oft-repeated desire to gut the 2A and read corporations out of the 1A, shouldn’t be taken seriously.

    Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court. Originalism has faced setbacks before; it has recovered.

    See? Delusional.

    1. The fact that she might get us into many wars including a war with Russia should be concerning to a lot of people. But her promises of moar free shit and pushing every proggy dream right past congress is all the left care about.

  13. We, the undersigned lawyers and scholars, are committed to the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States. We write to oppose the election of Donald Trump.

    So, whose election do they support? What alternatives do they suggest?

    Its pretty easy to come out and say Trump is shit. So, OK – I won’t vote for Trump. Who do these guys suggest I vote for?

    1. Hillary, because how much damage can one person do? Unless that person is Trump.

      I believe that is exactly their argument. They should be embarrassed.

      We are under no illusions about the choices posed by this election?or about whether Hillary Clinton, were she elected, would be any friend to originalism. Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court.

      They seem to be under the belief that having bad manners is worse than selling the Secretary of State’s office to foreign governments and engaging in a massive conspiracy to obstruct justice:

      We happen to see Trump as uniquely unsuited to the office,

      1. During Hillary’s reign of terror, the media will focus exclusively on first dude Willy’s escapades, scary clowns, and racism.

  14. We are under no illusions about the choices posed by this election?or about whether Hillary Clinton, were she elected, would be any friend to originalism. Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court.

    Yet your little letter is titled ‘Originalists Against Trump‘ and not ‘Originalists Against Trump andClinton’

    Originalism is strong enough to survive a Clinton administration or even a Trump administration – but don’t vote for Trump because he’s a danger to Originalism.

    Church it up anyway you want boy, this is just a ‘we think Trump is icky’ screed.

    1. “this is just a ‘we think Trump is icky’ screed.”

      And everyone knows we need more of those. Because it’s not like we’ll get another in 5 minutes.

    2. “Originalism is strong enough to survive a Clinton administration or even a Trump administration – but don’t vote for Trump because he’s a danger to Originalism.”

      But I think it’s safe to say that Originalists weren’t going to be voting for Clinton *anyway*. As I read it, this statement is addressed to those who are susceptible to thinking about voting for Trump based on originalist grounds.

      1. Except their very statement explicitly lays out the idea that Clinton is better, even if marginally, because *she’s just one person* and can’t do as much damage to Originalism as the single person known as Trump can.

        1. “*she’s just one person* and can’t do as much damage to Originalism as the single person known as Trump can.”

          I think that’s a true statement, personally. Whatever she does, she will do so without any pretense of operating under Originalist principles. A Trump pick would subvert Originalist ideas from the inside because he would claim that whomever he picked is “a terrific Originalist, just terrific”, even if he/she wasn’t.

          But their claim I think should be read as “we know Clinton isn’t an Originalist, but don’t be fooled into thinking that Trump is either”. They don’t need to go on at length about how Clinton isn’t an Originalist because that is simply accepted dogma at this point. To protest that they don’t explicitly say “we know Clinton isn’t an Originalist” is too much, IMO.

          1. Trump can’t ‘subvert from the inside’ – you can call your shit ‘originalist’ all you want, no one’s going to be fooled when he trots out the same prog shit the last 4 Presidents have.

            1. I don’t think anyone thinks Trump is an Originalist. Nothing he’s proposed is anywhere near Originalism. *Weld is more libertarian* than Trump acts like an Originalist.

              Trump’s appeal is that he’s an outsider who’ll say shit about anything. The pretense is he’s ‘just calling a spade a spade’ when all he’s really doing is the same thing Clinton is. Whatever it takes to get himself elected.

            2. But if he were to trot out the same prog shit, he would do so IN THE NAME of Originalism and conservatism generally. That’s the problem.

              It is the same as how Bush Jr. redefined conservatism to mean big-government spending and international adventurism, just because he had an R after his name, he claimed it was conservatism, and his hangers-on managed to convince themselves that sure, it could all be considered “conservative” for the sake of maintaining political power.

              We are seeing it right now with Trump. Plenty of erstwhile conservatives twisting themselves into knots trying to convince people that Trump really is some sort of conservative savior.

        2. Trump is Legion for he is many.

  15. Yeah, it seems a weird position when you recognize both of the candidates are enemies, but come out against the one who’s at least made some noise every now and again of being on your side, and at least shows some interest in courting your support and compromising with you.

    Compared to the one who’s declared you a basket of deplorable who she has no interest of courting or appealing, and lists as one of her primary goals overturning things you hold dear.

    But clearly Trump is the greater danger.

  16. an insecure lunatic, a fascist caudillo, an autarkist, a proud ignoramous and conspiracy theorist, the aspiring leader of a “Workers’ Party” who plays footsie with racists and anti-Semites and might well be a Russian agent?

    Jesus. Take two aspirin and get lots of rest, dude.

    1. Actually, I admire Gura’s talent for understatement.

  17. “We, the undersigned lawyers and scholars, are ….

    Any sentence that starts like this is 100% certain to be followed by complete bullshit.

    1. Because this is an argumentum ad Top Men, it gets an F. In addition, what argument it does pose, as mentioned abovve, is fucking stupid. I take it that the lawyers that hang out here are bad lawyers acuz mosst of you don’t exhibit the magnitude of stupid these “scholars” show.

      1. Yeah I don’t know of any tenured academics in our ranks, except mayyyyyybe Heroic Mulatto. But he’s a carpet bagger on that scene methinks.

    2. And so it is proven, yet again.

  18. and might well be a Russian agent

    Oh, FFS

    1. They forgot to bring up that he’s Wikileaks lackey as well. Holy Shit that undid any sort of scholarliness their opinion could have presented.

  19. an insecure lunatic, a fascist caudillo, an autarkist, a proud ignoramous and conspiracy theorist, the aspiring leader of a “Workers’ Party” who plays footsie with racists and anti-Semites and might well be a Russian agent?

    So . . . Clinton?

    1. I think it’s supposed to be the “Russian” part that narrows it down. Clinton would be a Chinese agent. Or perhaps an “agent for hire”.

  20. We are under no illusions about the choices posed by this election?or about whether Hillary Clinton, were she elected, would be any friend to originalism. Yet our country’s commitment to its Constitution is not so fragile that it can be undone by a single administration or a single court.

    ::Struggles to count how many people Trump is::

    1. Trump is YUUUGE so he counts like three people minimum (Himself, The Hat, and The Hair)

  21. “We, the undersigned lawyers and scholars, are committed to the original meaning of the Constitution of the United States. We write to oppose the election of Donald Trump.”

    We effectively get a binary choice in this election. It’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.

    So, the real question is: which do you oppose more: the election of Donald Trump or the election of Hillary Clinton?

    Hillary’s position on Citizens United alone should be enough to answer that question.

    1. It’s not a binary choice.

      1. Yes, at this point it’s a binary choice: the political establishment has managed to marginalize Johnson to such a degree that he has no chance of getting elected.

      2. If your vote has *any* chance of making an electoral difference, it is a tertiary choice:

        1) Vote for Trump

        2) Vote for Clinton

        3) Vote for someone else effectively voting for Clinton,

    2. “We effectively get a binary choice in this election.”

      Have you noticed where you are commenting?

      1. A safe space for fact-free bullshit?

        1. Everyplace you can safely post meets that description.

        2. NOT AT ALL GOODTONY, WE HAVE YOU TO ENLITEN US!!!1!11!!!!!

      2. Have you noticed where you are commenting?

        Yes, I have “noticed” for the decade or so that I have been on this site. Why do you ask? What does that have to do with the election?

    3. “We effectively get a binary choice in this election.”

      No. The people in the swing states might have such a choice. But “we” as in “everyone” do not. My state’s gonna hand ten votes to Clinton, nuthin’ my choice can do about it. Which is why I’m choosing third party to add a tiny bit towards the goal of getting enough of the popular vote for that party to be relevant in 4 years. That’s literally the only choice someone like me who lives in a non-swing state can make that does /anything/.

      Stop pretending like it’s a choice between Trump and Clinton. In a non swing state, I can’t even choose either of them. I get Clinton in my electoral college regardless, there ain’t no choice for us non swingers, don’t be lyin’ now.

      1. No. The people in the swing states might have such a choice.

        We as Americans face a binary choice. In English, that doesn’t mean every individual does.

        In a non swing state, I can’t even choose either of them.

        Nobody is forcing you to live in a non-swing state. I moved out of one, so can you.

  22. So, Trump, who is not well liked by his own party is more of danger to the Constitution because he will do the worst interpretation of what he says, while Clinton, with the full backing of a major political party cannot damage Constitutional rule enough fulfulling her party’s stated platform in a term of office to be concerned about.

    Seems legit.

    No. Sorry. If Trump is a danger than Hilary is more so, because the Dems will be united behind her. If Hilary is nothing to be concerned about, th hen neither is Trump. The cognitive dissonance in this satement reeks to high heaven.

    1. Also, the press. Trump is a thin-skinned blowhard with authoritarian leanings, but he will be up against the full opposition of the mainstream media, the Dems in Congress, and at least a handful of Republican defectors. There is no way he can do more damage than Hillary, who will get a pass from the media and her own party no matter what she does. And on foreign policy, she’ll have plenty of neocon supporters, as well.

      1. Hillary is 100% likely to do the stupid shit she and her party wish to do. (no one thought Obamacare would get done, but look where we are now.)
        Trump is

      2. who will get a pass from the media and her own party no matter what she does.

        You can bet the media are salivating at the idea of a Cititzens United overturn and any other laws restricting the 1A, because it will increase their revenue, power, and influence.

  23. Constitutional Originalists Against Trump
    Why top libertarian and conservative legal scholars oppose the GOP candidate.

    You won’t have to worry about that archaic, homophobic, white, male, slave owning, capitalist rag, the US Constitution once Trump the Grump (or Heil Hitlary) gets elected. Either one will rip up that useless piece(s) of paper, and justly so.
    They both know what to do to build a fascist (or socialist slave) state.
    They’ve both been to the best re-education camps this country has to offer.
    Totalitarianism, here we come!

  24. “might well be a Russian agent?”

    Unlike Hillary who has been paid millions by the Russians and then gave them 20% of our Uranium supply so that they can make more weapons.

    Who needs spies when you have Hillary in your pocket

  25. I’m surprised to see that Randy Barnett’s name was missing. He certainly abhors Trump’s ignorance of the Constitution and Trump’s apparent disdain for any kind of restraints on the government. I guess Barnett takes it for granted that anyone who actually gives a damn about limited government would necessarily despise Trump and wouldn’t need legal scholars to tell them how to vote.

    1. Or maybe he understands that Trump is playing Russian roulette with a revolver, while Hillary is doing it with a semiautomatic.

      Because, as many commenters here have discussed, that is really what we are looking at. We know that Hillary will do her best to destroy anything related to limited government and freedom. We suspect Trump *might* do that.

      But, with Hillary, we also know that she will be far more effective at it, as the entire, stinking, corrupt main stream media is in her pocket, as they have demonstrated so clearly since Trump got the nomination.

      1. I’m not sure that a random number generator like Trump is necessarily less dangerous than someone who is like loaded dice that almost always comes up snake eyes.

        I’m going to keep hoping for a meteor to strike the next debate completely evaporating the two debaters and leaving everyone else both unharmed and relieved.

        1. I’m not sure that a random number generator like Trump is necessarily less dangerous than someone who is like loaded dice that almost always comes up snake eyes.

          What’s missing from your metaphor is the fact that Trump lacks political power, while Hillary has plenty of it. Trump may be unpredictable, but he can’t make much happen. Hillary has committed to doing stupid, harmful, unconstitutional shit, and she has the power to push her shit through Congress.

    2. Or maybe he understands that Trump is playing Russian roulette with a revolver, while Hillary is doing it with a semiautomatic.

      Because, as many commenters here have discussed, that is really what we are looking at. We know that Hillary will do her best to destroy anything related to limited government and freedom. We suspect Trump *might* do that.

      But, with Hillary, we also know that she will be far more effective at it, as the entire, stinking, corrupt main stream media is in her pocket, as they have demonstrated so clearly since Trump got the nomination.

    3. Or maybe he understands that Trump is playing Russian roulette with a revolver, while Hillary is doing it with a semiautomatic.

      Because, as many commenters here have discussed, that is really what we are looking at. We know that Hillary will do her best to destroy anything related to limited government and freedom. We suspect Trump *might* do that.

      But, with Hillary, we also know that she will be far more effective at it, as the entire, stinking, corrupt main stream media is in her pocket, as they have demonstrated so clearly since Trump got the nomination.

  26. Disingenuous prevaricators, mendacious morons, hillary is your great hope????

  27. If you are one that believes the Supreme Court is the final arbiter of what is lawful and constitutional, then you have believed a lie and a myth that Jefferson warned about. The States still retain their rights to this day to defy the federal judiciary, which has become an oligarcy. We just need strong statesmen as governors and legislatures to make that stand!

    In writing to William Jarvis, Jefferson said, “You seem . . . to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”

    The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary; an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow) working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief, over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped.”

    1. It matters not how it is supposed to work. The fact is that SCOTUS has vast power and that is not going to change anytime soon.

  28. Now to the “winning and losing”. This is all fake. Clinton is going to “win” and was always going to win no matter what because the elections themselves are a sham. I know this is really, really hard for Americans to come to grips with, but these national-level elections are all bullshit and have been for a while. Donald Trump wants NOTHING TO DO with being “president” of the former-United States. Think about it. What person in their right mind would want to be “president” over the next four years, as the catastrophic destabilization, the aggressive execution of the Cloward-Piven strategy comes to full flower? As I said from the beginning, the Obama regime would incite a race-based civil war inside the U.S., while simultaneously destabilizing the rest of the world AND reforming and arming a new islamic Caliphate. Check. The Obama regime also executed the Cloward-Piven Strategy upon the U.S. economy AND healthcare delivery system. This was done in a two-pronged attack, namely Obamacare and the dissolving of the Mexican border. Check.

    http://www.barnhardt.biz/2016/…..her-notes/


  29. Facebook Create a job in 2016 for every user just using facebook account
    for 2-3hr.I am check this is nice job first hr i earn 180$ and last my eaning balance is 345$ per hour.
    ???????? http://www.great.jobs14.com

  30. There may be a good reason why libertarians should vote for Trump. He will have the GOP and Congress so fractured they can’t pass any legislation for 4 years. And we all know “the best government is that which governs least.

    1. That’s what I’m talking about. His election would split the government into more factions that are less effective.

  31. Wow – what stupidity. Trump would be anti-originalist, so let’s elect Hillary? Seriously? Because that is the *only* choice. Johnson and the others don’t have a prayer.

    Trump may indeed go back on his promise to appoint originalists. Hillary is guaranteed to appoint anti-originalists!

    It amazes me how otherwise smart people can do this sort of stupid thing. Adler is a clear example – a normally reasonable conservative who has become unhinged by his disgust with Trump, even though he clearly knows that Hillary Clinton is against everything he believes in.

    He and the others would rather have a sure major setback to the constitutional rule of law rather than dirty their hands with Trump.

    Well, their hands are plenty dirty. They have lost all credibility with this conservative, by putting their feelings over their common sense.

    1. It amazes me how otherwise smart people can do this sort of stupid thing. Adler is a clear example – a normally reasonable conservative who has become unhinged by his disgust with Trump, even though he clearly knows that Hillary Clinton is against everything he believes in.

      It’s enough to make you wonder if the part we are getting wrong is the “against everything he believes in” part. I think Trump’s supposed vulgarity and temperament are just an excuse. I think they are more committed to the globalist vision than we realised.

  32. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    ……………… http://www.jobprofit9.com

  33. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  34. Kaylee . I just agree… Michelle `s rep0rt is incredible, on tuesday I bought themselves a Acura after having earned $4812 this past month and a little over 10-k last munth . without a doubt its the easiest-work I have ever had . I began this seven months/ago and pretty much straight away earned over $71 per-hr . pop over to this site

    ……………. http://www.jobhub44.com

  35. Five months ago,after getting fired from my j0b , i’ve been blessed t0 find 0ut ab0ut this amazing site 0nline that was a lifesaver… They 0ffer 0nline h0me-based w0rk. My last m0nth check after w0rking with them f0r three m0nths was 38699 d0llars… Amazing thing ab0ut it was that 0nly thing required is basic typing and internet access…. http://WWW.NAVJOBS99.TK
    ???????????????????

  36. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  37. Liliana . if you think Lawrence `s blog is incredible, I just purchased a new Honda after earning $5741 this – 4 weeks past and also 10 grand lass month . it’s by-far the most-comfortable job I have ever done . I started this four months/ago and almost immediately began to make minimum $85… p/h .

    see this……………. http://www.BuzzNews10.com

  38. Super and Easiest 0nl!nee Home opportunity forall. Make 2512 Dollars per month.All you just Need an Internet Connection and aComputer To Make Some Extra cash.Visit this link………..

    =======tiny.tw/3qVg

  39. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  40. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  41. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

  42. until I looked at the paycheck saying $4730 , I did not believe that…my… brother woz like actualy bringing in money part time from there computar. . there friend brother started doing this for less than 7 months and resently paid for the morgage on there home and bought a new Cadillac …….

    …….. http://www.jobprofit9.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.