ConstitutionAlly

BIG fan of the Constitution

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Men & Women Are Different

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

In this whole arrest of Maduro episode, the thing I find most interesting is that El Presidente was so beloved by his own people that he couldn’t trust them to protect him. His 32 personal bodyguards were all Cuban.

That says a lot.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

@elonmusk There are some people that are so “civilized” that they will not defend civility itself. Will not defend civilization. They believe that nothing is worth fighting for or dying for.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

As the fraud is revealed, keep in mind the ninth law: https://t.co/EePh3BcrYz

#Fraud

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

@IanJaeger29 Never heard of him. Buh-bye!

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Regarding any agreement with Hamas…

Muhammad taught that it is okay to enter into a truce when you are weak in order to rebuild your forces and then, when you are again powerful, to resume your attacks. Just use a pretext like accusing the other side of having violated the treaty. Easy.

If this 20-point plan is generous and includes aid, we will be contributing to rebuilding HAMAS. Gazans themselves must repudiate HAMAS, but a large portion of them support HAMAS.

The only Solution to Hamas is to eliminate them to a man. Wipe them out. Of course, they will just be replaced by something else…

Following October 7 and the Israeli counter-attack, people were saying “Enough already.” Nonsense. If your home is on fire, you don’t call the fire department expecting them to put out just 75% of the fire… you want them to finish the job.

I hope that Hamas DOES NOT agree to a cease-fire. Any capitulation on their part will be deception that serves their purposes and we will learn a harsh lesson.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

By now, many of you have heard about California Bill SB771 which censors free speech on social media, and ‘protects’ people, especially ‘historically marginalized groups,’ from hateful speech, as defined by some bureaucrat in California.

Of course, this will not pass constitutional muster and I’m sure the idjits in California that passed this bill know that. I see this as just virtue signaling on a grand scale.

Originally, the Bill of Rights restricted only the federal government but over time, much of the Bill of Rights has been “Incorporated“ and applies to the states as well. The free speech protections of the First Amendment were incorporated in 1925. [Gitlow v. New York (1925)]

Of course, under the current paradigm, someone in California will have to be convicted of violating this law and will then be required to appeal it to the federal courts, all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

<sigh>

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

@TheGriftReport Great parody on one of the best scenes from my favorite movie. Good work too whoever crafted that clip.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Were you fired for celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk? This message is for you! https://t.co/6t19ERHcRV

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

I am absolutely amazed, astonished, by the hypocrisy of the left concerning vaccine mandates. Allowing parents to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children is seen as a “public health crisis.“

The very people sounding the alarm now were totally silent when the previous administration admitted 10 to 12,000,000 illegals with unknown vaccination histories and who might have in fact been carrying disease from far off lands.

Sheeeesh!

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

@TrumpsHurricane My advice: learned to code.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

School Shootings Revisited:

Following is a blog post I originally wrote on March 25th, 2018. Given the recent shooting in Minnesota, it seems a good time to share this again.

A Question For Millennials

I have a question for the students of Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School and others of their generation - the ones who claim to have the answer to the question: How do we stop school shootings? (The answer they offer is 'More gun control.')

Mine is a question they do not seem to be asking themselves but which they ought to ponder. It is not a hypothetical question – I really, really want to know what they think on the subject.

So that they might be fully aware of my reason for asking this question — letting them know where I’m coming from — I should explain that my high school had a rifle club.

Others of my generation belonged to trap and skeet shooting teams in school and brought their shotguns to school, put them and their ammo in their lockers until after class and then went shooting on the HS team. (One fellow tells that, at his school, things were more strict; one had to leave his shotgun and ammo in the Principal’s office and pick it up after classes.)

Others of my generation took their rifles to school, left them in the back of the classroom and then, on the way home, bagged a few squirrels for dinner.

It was a time before FFLs (Federal Firearms Licensees — gun dealers), long before background checks and it was a time when one could buy a gun at Sears & Roebuck, the Western Auto store, a hardware store and anywhere else that chose to sell them. You could buy guns by mail order from the ads in the newspaper. Anyone could buy as many guns as they wanted.

By contrast, today, guns have never been harder to purchase in the USA than they are now but "easy access to guns" is often cited these days as the reason for school shootings.

So, we (my generation) had no FFLs, no background checks, no restrictions on where we could buy guns or how many. We also had no epidemic of school shootings.

You see, the kids these days think they know the answer to the question: How do we stop school shootings? In fact, they are not even asking the right question which is: Why did school shootings become a ‘thing’? Why did they start?

What has changed between my generation and yours that makes your generation so willing to go to school, and massacre schoolmates? In my day, we had the occasional fight on the playground or in the parking lot. Someone got a black eye or a bloody nose and that was it.

It would never occur to us to go after someone with a gun, much less engage in wholesale slaughter. What's changed?

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

@Alphafox78 This is not a black problem. There is nothing genetically that causes this. This is not racial. This is cultural.

This can be fixed with proper values and bringing back shame.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

If the Chinese invaded the US and there were 1 million Chinese soldiers occupying California, the Democrats would call them undocumented vacationers and Gavin Newsom would demand congressional representation for them!

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Ummm… Folks, foreigners overstaying their visas are here just as illegally as the sneak ins.

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

@Abhinav05655123 @LeadingReport It tells them “don’t come here unless you follow the law.“

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Treason?

I've been hearing a lot of people lately talking about treason, treasonous actions by Biden administration officials and calling various persons traitors. This is a mistake.

As deplorable as previous administrations have treated Donald Trump and his supporters, their actions do not arise to the level of "treason."

The Constitution itself defines treason in Article III, Section 3: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

It would be very difficult to prove in court that the actions of the Deep State in trying to bring down President Trump amounted to giving aid and comfort to America's enemies. Indeed, the conspiracy against Donald Trump wasn't aimed at America, though it was certainly harmful to America, but was aimed squarely at Donald Trump personally and his supporters.

So, yes, prosecute the perpetrators and send them to prison, but not for "treason."

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Let's Do a Census Now!

The Constitution requires that Representatives in the House portion of the Congress be allocated to states based on populations. Each state is guaranteed at least one Representative and the balance are apportioned based on population, with more populous states having more representatives. We are not currently in compliance with this requirement.

Currently, Representatives are apportioned based on populations in 2020. Since the last census, large numbers of citizens have fled burning, looted cities. They have exited lawless, defund-the-police, sanctuary states and relocated to states where they can enjoy peace and prosperity.

When they moved out of poorly run states, they took their votes with them but not their congressional representation. The states they left therefore have representation in Congress that is undeserved and not in proportion to population, as required by the Constitution.

Historically, the census and reapportionment of Congressional seats has taken place at ten year intervals, but this is not what the Constitution requires.

Article I, section 2 specifies: "The actual Enumeration [census] shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct." Note that it does not specify that the Enumeration should occur at 10-year intervals but, rather, "within" the subsequent ten year term.

The question arises: "subsequent" to what? Subsequent to the previous ten year term? If the authors had intended to have enumerations at a ten-year interval, there are many easier way to state it. But it does not say "At the end | termination | completion | expiration of every subsequent ten year term", any of which would indicate a ten year interval. It makes sense that they meant subsequent to the last Enumeration. Especially since they say "within" ...

The first Enumeration was required to occur "within three Years" of the first meeting of the new Congress and the next was required to occur "within" the subsequent term of ten years following the first Enumeration.

"Within" meant then exactly what it means now. The Constitution did not require waiting three years to do the first Enumeration. It could have been done at one year, two years or at any point up to a maximum of three years subsequent to the first meeting of Congress.

Likewise, we don't have to wait ten years subsequent to any later Enumeration to do the next. Ten years is not the designated interval for the Enumerations to occur, it is the longest permitted interval between Enumerations, just as three years was the longest permitted interval between the first meeting of Congress and the first enumeration.

When an Enumeration occurs, the ten-year clock is reset and the next Enumeration must occur "within" that subsequent ten-year term. That's how I read it.

Therefore, Enumerations and reapportionment of House seats today can be done "within" the ten years subsequent to the previous Enumeration, which was in 2020.

Because of the substantial population shift since the last census, if reapportionment were done based on July, 2024 estimated populations, at least six House seats would move to different states in order to reflect the 2024 state populations. By the next election, this number will likely increase further. This needs to be corrected and should be corrected immediately to bring the House representative allocations into compliance with the Constitution's requirement that seats be allocated based on population.

It has been the practice to do reapportionment after each decennial census. Current federal law stipulates such. But this ten year interval is more restrictive than the Constitution's within-ten-years stipulation and is therefore of questionable constitutionality.

To believe that we must wait until 2030 to correct this over/under-representation is to say that we are compelled to remain out of compliance with the Constitution's requirement that representatives be allotted by population for five more years.

I believe that the Constitutional requirement overrides current federal law regarding Enumeration timing and that President Trump should effect an Enumeration in 2026 for the purpose of bringing House seat allocations into compliance with the Constitution. Do a census in 2026, completing it by Census Day (April 1), announce the new Representative allotments in time for affected states to redistrict before the 2026 federal elections.

• States projected to lose seats
• California: –2
• New York: –1
• Illinois: –1
• Minnesota: –1
• Oregon: –1

• States projected to gain seats
• Texas: +2
• Florida: +2
• Arizona: +1
• Idaho: +1

These projections are based on analysis by Election Data Services (Dec 2024), using Census Bureau estimates.

And, of course, this doesn't affect just congressional representation; there are electoral college votes involved too.

We need to bring this to the attention of President Trump. PLease share this widely and with people who have large followings.

We need to get busy right now if we’re to accomplish this in time for the midterm elections.

#census, #electoral college, #House. #Constitution, #delegates, #congress

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Barack Obama was not eligible to run for president because he was not a "natural born citizen" as required by the Constitution. Just what is a "natural born citizen?" It has to do with his birth but not only his place of birth.

The delegates to the Constitutional convention in 1787 wanted future presidents to be free of foreign influence - a through and through American. Toward that end, they specified in the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, the following: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President…"

It is notable that the term "natural born citizen" appears nowhere else in American jurisprudence except in the Constitution as a qualification to be president. The question is: What is a natural born citizen, as understood by the Constitution's authors?

Delegates to the Constitutional Convention often referred to “The Law of Nations” by Emer de Vattel. In Book I, Chapter 19, Section 212, Vattel defines “natural-born citizens” thusly: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” "Parents" - plural.

As we know, Barack Obama's mother was American but his father was Kenyan. Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and was not eligible, per the Constitution, to run for president.

There was much discussion when he first ran, about his place of birth - phony birth certificate and so on. I believe it is possible, even probable, that Obama's handlers planted the story about him not being born in America just so that they could dismiss anyone questioning anything about his birth as a "birther" conspiracy nut. And America fell for it.

Barack Obama was greatly influenced by his Kenyan father's anti-colonialist biases and it showed throughout his two terms as president. Which is exactly the kind of thing the Constitution's authors wanted to avoid by specifying that any future president be a natural born citizen.

#natural born citizen, #constitution, #Obama,

[ConstitutionAlly @MickeyMichels]

Defending the Constitution

Each and every congressman swears an oath to defend the constitution. I wonder how many of them have actually even read it.

When I joined the military, I swore an oath to protect the constitution “against all enemies, foreign and domestic.“ I have never been released from that oath, nor would I care to be. That is the reason I talk about the Constitution so much these days. I would like to see a return to the limited, constitutional government that was intended.

Have you read the Constitution?