Have They Even Read The Constitution???

All members of the United States Congress, as well as all state governors and legislators are required, before taking their seat, to swear an oath to the Constitution of the United States.  Now, if I’m going to swear an oath to something, then I am damn sure going to be clear on exactly what it is I’m swearing an oath to.  I take such things seriously.  I’ve never been elected to office, so have never had to swear an oath to the Constitution, but I have studied Constitutional Law at length and have read the full document numerous times.  I keep a pocket Constitution on the table next to me and have another in the drawer in my nightstand.  Apparently, that is not the case for some of the people who have sworn an oath to the document.

My jaw dropped yesterday when I read that Kentucky lawmakers have passed a bill that would make the state a so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary,” prohibiting local law enforcement from enforcing federal firearm bans.  Say WHAT???

The US Supremacy Clause, found in Article VI is a provision in the US Constitution that states that the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the federal government are the supreme law of the land. The clause ensures that federal laws and regulations take precedence over any state or local laws that may conflict with them.

The state of Missouri tried the same crap last year when Missouri Governor Mike Parson signed into law the Second Amendment Preservation Act (SAPA), which declared that limitations on gun transfers, firearm registrations and other federal regulations are unconstitutional.  A federal judge struck down the law earlier this month, saying …

“While purporting to protect citizens, SAPA exposes citizens to greater harm by interfering with the Federal Government’s ability to enforce lawfully enacted firearms regulations designed by Congress for the purpose of protecting citizens within the limits of the Constitution.”

Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has appealed the decision.

What part of the Constitution do the lawmakers in Missouri and Kentucky fail to understand?  It’s plain as day!  It’s written in English, not Swahili, the language is purposefully kept simple so that anybody, regardless of level of education, could understand it, and yet we have highly paid elected officials who either have not bothered to read it, else are not bright enough to understand it!

Kentucky’s bill passed the state House in a 78-19 vote last month, and cleared the state Senate on Wednesday 27-9.  Apparently there are more than just a few dumb asses in the Kentucky legislature!

Those who represent the people of any state need to understand that this is a nation, the United States of America, and that we stand together, we have federal laws that supersede any and all state or local laws, that have been deemed to be in the best interest of the nation.  We cannot have state after state simply decide which laws they will abide by and which they will override.  That’s NOT how it works!

I sincerely hope the court system sends these bills to the shredder as fast as it can, and sends a loud and clear message to other states that might be considering similar actions.  My concern, naturally, is that when one of these cases works its way up to the Supreme Court, the compromised court may fail to do the right thing, as they have done numerous times in the past year.

If the laws in Missouri and Kentucky are ultimately upheld by the highest Court, then think about the consequences …

  • A six-year-old kid walks into a gun store … as long as he’s got the money, he walks out with a gun
  • A drunk staggers into a gun shop, tells the clerk “Gimme the biggest gun you got … I’m gonna kill that bitch.” As long as he’s got the money, he walks out with a gun.
  • A woman gets out of prison after serving five years for attempting to kill her spouse. Her first stop is the gun shop, and as long as she’s got the money, she walks out with a gun.

Guns are not toys, and I am horrified that gun ownership is more highly cherished than the lives of the children of this nation.  But if states are allowed to override federal laws, it could well get even worse.  What’s next?  Do some states write laws to disregard the 19th Amendment that makes it illegal to deny the right to vote to any citizen based on their sex?  Or the 15th Amendment that makes it illegal to deny the right to vote to any citizen based on their race?  Or perhaps the 13th Amendment that abolished slavery?

People … it’s on US to ensure that the people we vote for are qualified, that they fully understand the Constitution to which they will be swearing an oath, and that they respect the people of this nation enough to follow the laws of the land, not to be wasting their time scheming for ways to uproot the safety and cohesion of the nation.

We are a nation, not just 50 states, but ONE NATION.  The “UNITED” States of America.

GOP Candidate Violated Separation of Church and State

I am going to just tippy-toe into this one and try to come out relatively unscathed.  Shhhhh …. no loud noises that might give me away, please.  I just want to come out with my hide intact and at least a few friends left.  The topic, as you may have guessed, involves religion, though it is not a post about religion per se, but rather a post about the role of religion in U.S. government, more specifically in the election campaigns currently assailing us.

Let us first get a few facts straight.  Though the actual term ‘separation of church and state’ is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the following clauses make it quite clear that the framers of that document intended to keep religion out of government, as well as government out of religion:

  • “No religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.” – Article VI, U.S. Constitution
  • “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” – 1st Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Thomas Jefferson

The term “separation of church and state” is attributed to Thomas Jefferson in 1802, when he wrote: “I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.”

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1879, in the case of Reynolds v The United States  that Jefferson’s comments “may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First] Amendment.”  Then again in   Everson v Board of Education (1947) , Justice Hugo Black wrote: “In the words of Thomas Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect a wall of separation between church and state.”  So just to be clear, there is, or should be, no doubt that the separation of church and state is woven into the very foundation of the structure of our government and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court, thus making it the law of the land.

Now, given that there is no dispute that religion has no role in governmental affairs, why did the Republican presumptive nominee make this statement:  “we don’t know anything about Hillary in terms of religion.”  I understand some deny that he said it, since the venue was closed to all press, but there is a video taken by one of the religious leaders in attendance, so I think it is indisputable that he said it.  What is not clear is why he said it.  Hillary Clinton’s religion, or Donald Trump’s for that matter, has absolutely no relevance to the political campaign nor does it speak to their qualifications for the office of president.  I do not know, nor do I need to know, nor do I wish to know what religion, if any, either of them ascribe to.  It makes just as much difference as what their favourite ice cream flavour is!  It is irrelevant to their candidacy.  Period.

The other, equally if not more disturbing news in this arena is that Trump has announced his appointment of an “evangelical executive advisory board” to lead a larger “Faith and Cultural Advisory Committee” that will be announced later in June.  Now, if the candidate simply wants a group of people that he can call on for his own personal religious needs, that is none of my business and I do not care.  However, I am appalled by this statement: “I have such tremendous respect and admiration for this group and I look forward to continuing to talk about the issues important to Evangelicals, and all Americans, and the common sense solutions I will implement when I am President.”  Excuse me, but is he saying that he plans to learn what issues are important to ‘all Americans’ from this particular group of evangelicals?  Because evangelicals do not represent the whole of the American people, they do not represent me, and from what I know about these particular people (more on that in a minute) I do not share their values on any topic!

church-stateIn order to prepare for any potential role in government, especially the highest office in the land, Donald Trump needs political advisors.  He needs foreign policy advisors, economic advisors, national security advisors, but he does not need religious advisors.  In fact, it is highly inappropriate for him to form his potential governmental policies based on the advice of a small handful of people from a single religion!  It is unconstitutional!

Let us look at the list, as it stands at this time:

  • Michele Bachmann – Former Congresswoman (also America’s #2 Bimbo – why is she even here???)
  • A.R. Bernard – Senior Pastor and CEO, Christian Cultural Center
  • Mark Burns – Pastor, Harvest Praise and Worship Center
  • Tim Clinton –President, American Association of Christian Counselors
  • Kenneth and Gloria Copeland – Founders, Kenneth Copeland Ministries
  • James Dobson – Author, Psychologist and Host, My Family Talk
  • Jerry Falwell, Jr. – President, Liberty University
  • Ronnie Floyd – Senior Pastor, Cross Church
  • Jentezen Franklin – Senior Pastor, Free Chapel
  • Jack Graham – Senior Pastor, Prestonwood Baptist Church
  • Harry Jackson – Senior Pastor, Hope Christian Church
  • Robert Jeffress – Senior Pastor, First Baptist Church of Dallas
  • David Jeremiah – Senior Pastor, Shadow Mountain Community Church
  • Richard Land – President, Southern Evangelical Seminary
  • James MacDonald – Founder and Senior Pastor, Harvest Bible Chapel
  • Johnnie Moore – Author, President of The KAIROS Company
  • Robert Morris – Senior Pastor, Gateway Church
  • Tom Mullins – Senior Pastor, Christ Fellowship­
  • Ralph Reed –Founder,Faith and Freedom Coalition
  • James Robison– Founder, Life OUTREACH International
  • Tony Suarez – Executive VicePresident, National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference
  • Jay Strack – President, Student Leadership University
  • Paula White – Senior Pastor, New Destiny Christian Center
  • Tom Winters – Attorney, Winters and King, Inc.
  • Sealy Yates – Attorney, Yates and Yates


These are not merely religious leaders, they are, with the exception of Bachman (and who knows how she fell into this group), radical right-wing religious haters.  They do not promote peace and love, they promote racism, bigotry and hate.  Every single one have spoken against the LGBT community.  Every single one are against a woman’s right to abortion.  They are against same-sex marriage.  The ‘advice’ of these people would completely unravel the social progress that has been made, ever so slowly, over the past decade! At least one made racist remarks regarding the Trayvon Martin case.  They are pro-gun rights.  They in no way represent anybody of moderate or liberal values.  It would be most inappropriate, and I should think a dis-qualifying factor, for Mr. Trump to seek policy advice from this group of religious radicals.

Look at the list, pick a few of the names and search them on Google.  Read about their beliefs, their past activities, their political stands.  Then ask yourself the following questions:  Do I really want these people to make the decisions that will affect not only me, but the entire nation in which I live?  And do I really want a president who thinks the opinions of these people are more important than those of experts in the fields of foreign policy, economics, health care, environment, and national security?

There are many, many different religions in the world, most of which can be found within the borders of the United States, since the nation was, in part, founded on the concept of religious freedom. There are also those who are secularists, atheists, agnostics, or just undecided as yet.  To base policy on a single religion is to exclude all the rest of the nation, to exclude, in fact, the majority of our citizens. Think about it.