Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » All government employees work for the American people. They should be loyal to The Constitution and the American people, NOT TRUMP! Right?
RosieG

All government employees work for the American people. They should be loyal to The Constitution and the American people, NOT TRUMP! Right?

Trump works for us too who is supposed to. Whether we pay him ot not he is nothing more than an EMPLOYEE who can fired (impeached). Why anyone believes loyalty to Trump is the primary directive doesn't understand how our country works (or is SUPPOSED to work!). Do you?

Posted - February 14, 2017
Tags : None

Responses


  • 6023

    I bet you can't find ONE single politician who is loyal to the Constitution. 
    They all believe it is a "living document" - able to be interpreted by whatever the current society believes.
    Which only means - as long as society lets them get away with breaking the Constitution, they will.

    Want examples?
    Social security ... Medicare ... Tax incentives for corporations ... Dept of Education ... Dept of Agriculture ... National Parks, Forests, etc.

    None of those are mentioned in the Constitution.
    And under the 10th Amendment ... any power not *specifically* delegated by the Constitution to the federal government - nor *specifically* prohibited to the states - are reserved to the States and/or People.

      February 14, 2017 3:28 PM MST
    4

  • The living Constitution argument is so a** backwards.   It basically means that the Constitution is meaningless.
      February 14, 2017 3:36 PM MST
    2

  • 6023
    Exactly.

    I always say ... if THEY can "interpret" the Constitution, why can't *I* (or any other person)?
    After all, once they "interpret" the Constitution - their own authority under it is open for "interpretation".
      February 14, 2017 5:47 PM MST
    1

  • Only the SC is supposed to interpret it. It should be based on the meaning of the words and wording at the time it was written. This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 14, 2017 5:49 PM MST
      February 14, 2017 5:48 PM MST
    0

  • 6023

    Even the Supreme Court isn't supposed to interpret it.
    They are supposed to read it as written ... and if they need help understanding what it means, look at what the Founders said about it.
    They are also supposed to see if it is "just".  (EG: Slavery was legal under the Constitution - but unjust)

    But even if something is "unjust" - the SC can only encourage Congress to change the law, and say the law shouldn't be enforced.  They can't interpret the Law to mean something it didn't when it was written.

      February 15, 2017 3:34 PM MST
    0

  • Uhhh yes they are.  What you just described is called interpreting.
     
      February 15, 2017 3:41 PM MST
    0

  • Also,  how are we supposed to find out what the Founding Fathers thought about the later changes?  Well it doesn't matter because their opinion wouldn't matter on those.
      February 15, 2017 3:46 PM MST
    0

  • 6023

    I can see how you think that is interpreting ... but it is not the interpreting I am referring to.

    I refer to instances of when the Court says "we are ruling this way because of how it's done in other countries" ... or "we are ruling this way because of how society thinks nowadays" ... or the other ways that they blatantly ignore the writings of the Founders.  Or Congress, on "later changes".  (There is always plenty of records of debates before a law is passed, so the courts could read that and know EXACTLY what the intent of the law was)

      February 16, 2017 7:53 AM MST
    0

  • https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/interpret
      February 16, 2017 7:56 AM MST
    0