Republican Senator Announces He Will Not Support Trump – Even If He Is The Nominee
[guest post by Dana]
Republican senator Ben Sasse of Nebraska, who said back in January, ““I am not endorsing anybody in race and being pro-constitution just makes me anti Trump,” stuck to his guns when he announced this weekend in an open letter to his supporters that he would not be supporting Trump, even if he were the nominee:
The Trump coalition is broad and complicated, but I believe many Trump fans are well-meaning. I have spoken at length with many of you, both inside and outside Nebraska. You are rightly worried about our national direction. You ache about a crony-capitalist leadership class that is not urgent about tackling our crises. You are right to be angry.
I’m as frustrated and saddened as you are about what’s happening to our country. But I cannot support Donald Trump.
Please understand: I’m not an establishment Republican, and I will never support Hillary Clinton. I’m a movement conservative who was elected over the objections of the GOP establishment. My current answer for who I would support in a hypothetical matchup between Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton is: Neither of them. I sincerely hope we select one of the other GOP candidates, but if Donald Trump ends up as the GOP nominee, conservatives will need to find a third option.
Sasse then goes on to explain that he cannot support a candidate who lacks a fundamental understanding of how government works, as well as the dangers of Trump’s apparent belief that he is running to become the king rather than a public servant of the people.
He also suggests a Trump presidency could put the First Amendment at risk:
So let me ask you: Do you believe the beating heart of Mr. Trump’s candidacy has been a defense of the Constitution? Do you believe it’s been an impassioned defense of the First Amendment – or an attack on it?
Which of the following quotes give you great comfort that he’s in love with the First Amendment, that he is committed to defending the Constitution, that he believes in executive restraint, that he understands servant leadership?
Statements from Trump:
***“We’re going to open up libel laws and we’re going to have people sue you like you’ve never got sued before.”
***“When the students poured into Tiananmen Square, the Chinese government almost blew it. They were vicious, they were horrible, but they put it down with strength. That shows you the power of strength. Our country is right now perceived as weak…”
***Putin, who has killed journalists and is pillaging Ukraine, is a great leader.
***The editor of National Review “should not be allowed on TV and the FCC should fine him.”
***On whether he will use executive orders to end-run Congress, as President Obama has illegally done: “I won’t refuse it. I’m going to do a lot of things.” “I mean, he’s led the way, to be honest with you.”
***“Sixty-eight percent would not leave under any circumstance. I think that means murder. It think it means anything.”
***On the internet: “I would certainly be open to closing areas” of it.
***His lawyers to people selling anti-Trump t-shirts: “Mr. Trump considers this to be a very serious matter and has authorized our legal team to take all necessary and appropriate actions to bring an immediate halt…”
***Similar threatening legal letters to competing campaigns running ads about his record.
And I’ll just throw in this portion:
Given what we know about him today, here’s where I’m at: If Donald Trump becomes the Republican nominee, my expectation is that I will look for some third candidate – a conservative option, a Constitutionalist.
I do not claim to speak for a movement, but I suspect I am far from alone. After listening to Nebraskans in recent weeks, and talking to a great many people who take oaths seriously, I think many are in the same place. I believe a sizable share of Christians – who regard threats against religious liberty as arguably the greatest crisis of our time – are unwilling to support any candidate who does not make a full-throated defense of the First Amendment a first commitment of their candidacy.
Coming on the heels of Alabama’s Sen. Jeff Sessions surprising announcement that he would be supporting Trump, Ben Sasse’s unwavering stand for true Conservatism provides a welcome reminder that the surrender is not across the board.
Read his letter in its entirety.
–Dana
Good morning.
Dana (86e864) — 2/29/2016 @ 6:30 amBen Sasse for president.
either orr (19a286) — 2/29/2016 @ 6:48 amsasse has no classe i think
lol!
i haven’t even had my coffee yet and look at me I’m tearing it up
happyfeet (831175) — 2/29/2016 @ 6:59 amoh shocker
if you ask the googles they tell you ben sasse is both a yale boy AND pure grade-A harvard trash
man these ivy league trashbabies are in a tizzy to beat the band
advantage: Mr. The Donald
happyfeet (831175) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:02 amThe popular is the easy choice.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:05 amMaybe Sasse won’t vote. Right?
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:08 amnonono ivy league trash will vote for their own
ivy league uber alles
and that means by the end they’ll all be pulling the lever for that nasty incontinent old woman with the yale all up in her ying yang
even if the voting booth smells like pee
happyfeet (831175) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:11 amFirst they came for the Mexicans and when I protested the Chicago cop flicked his reins and his horse nudged me with its fetlock* and knocked me down.
Then they came for the Muslims and when I protested I was arrested for assault with a deadly weapon but the charge was dismissed because a walking cane, having a lawful ordinary use, is not a deadly weapon according to People v. Hyde.
Then they came for the pikachus and I just laughed, and laughed, and laughed.
*Horses do that. They’ll nudge you with their fetlocks when they don’t feel like kicking you.
nk (dbc370) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:20 amso he’s endorsing cruz, is there something I’m missing?
narciso (732bc0) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:23 amGreat post. I felt obligated to post almost exactly this post, and was very pleased to bring up my site and see that it was already there, without my having had to lift a finger. I love when that happens.
Patterico (86c8ed) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:33 am9.so he’s endorsing cruz, is there something I’m missing?
He is willing to stand against the establishment that is NOW Trump. If Trump/Hillary as they are one in the same becomes president he is putting himself at harms way from the Gestapo. I don’t think even Trump realizes the danger all will be in when he will be forced to cut deals with the DC Cartel.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:35 amTrump is not that smart to see where one tangle will lead to the next. He will be cutting deals in DC and not even realize. He is not trained and far too old to learned the rules of parliamentary procedures and will be lost. Having to depend on others to cut his deals. The US will become one hit mess if Trump wins.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:40 amnarciso, apparently since he stated: ““I am not endorsing anybody in race and being pro-constitution just makes me anti Trump”, you’re missing that he didn’t endorse Cruz. Which to me indicates he favors Rubio.
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:44 amDid Sasse support Romney or McCain? Both are big government statists.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:02 amAnd what’s Trump, Rob?
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:32 amDoes not this way a Democratic win come?
Gil (4e1585) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:37 amDo we not want to avoid a Democratic win at all costs?
Im for cruz, but if Trump wins my reaction is not going to be to split the republican vote and throw the win to the Democrats.
A vote for Trump is a vote for fascism and the end of the Republic.
Sean (221079) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:44 amHe’s the same. Just anti illegal immigration.
That’s my point. Thanks.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:47 amWhats a vote for Hillary then?
What is inaction in the face of a Democratic win?
Would Trump and a republican congress be better or worse than Hillary and a republican congress?
Would he nominate a better supreme court judge than would Hillary?
It’s not that black and white is it?
Gil (4e1585) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:47 amThat happened 8 years ago. It was called voting for Obama.
NJRob (a07d2e) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:48 amI can’t go that far. Hugh Hewitt spells out the case today:
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/six-reasons-trump-is-still-better-than-clinton/article/2584476
The counter-argument is essentially “Look at what Arnold Schwarzenegger did. Sure, he was a bit less leftist than a Democrat, but WE REPUBLICANS got the blame. At least if the Democrat is in office, the Dems will get the appropriate blame.”
The counter-counter-argument is Supreme Court Justices. I’d rather have Trump appointing a slew of O’Connor/ Kennedy squishes who MIGHT support the Constitution than Clinton or Sanders appointing young Sotomayors who won’t.
Mitch (341ca0) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:07 amI see no evidence whatsoever that either has the disdain for the constitution that Trump does.
McCain actually compiled a pretty conservative fiscal voting record over the years, which he never gets credit for. He voted against Bush’s Medicare drug expansion for example. But this post isn’t about spending anyway.
Gerald A (945582) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:12 amIf Trump were to get the nomination then it would be an election of two democrats. Cruz will not endorse Trump. He will wash his bands of the hit mess, and time will tell itself as it always does.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:18 amI will never vote for Donald Trump.
Patterico will never vote for Donald Trump.
Adj Dana will never vote for Donald Trump.
Hoagie said he will never vote for Donald Trump.
My Iraq vet daughter will never vote for Donald Trump.
My police officer son-in-law will never vote for Donald Trump.
And for you false-dichotomy fools, my nearly-graduated Math Major daughter will tell you, Zero does not equal One.
John Hitchcock (f3ad73) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:19 amI believe those are the kind of judges Trump would appoint. Don’t expect any Scalias out of a Pres. Trump. They are better than Sotomayor or whatever. Kennedy has a good record on guns and is fairly good on abortion. His SSM decision was absurd and he was the fifth vote to give the EPA the power to regulate green house gases, where they largely took the issue away from Congress where it belongs.
Gerald A (945582) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:20 amDo not buy a MS surface…….terrible keyboard processing
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:21 am24.I will never vote for Donald Trump.
Patterico will never vote for Donald Trump.
Adj Dana will never vote for Donald Trump.
Hoagie said he will never vote for Donald Trump.
My Iraq vet daughter will never vote for Donald Trump.
My police officer son-in-law will never vote for Donald Trump.
…………….
a vote for Trump is a vote for a train wreck. The general election would be between two democrats.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:23 amStupid voters gave us nearly a decade of BO , and they will now give us a decade worse than BO…
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:26 amI would suggest that every person who opposes Trump drop a note to Jeff Sessions
http://www.sessions.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/contact-jeff
with the single word: SHAME!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:38 amI’m thankful that somebody stood up.
One spark in simply a cloud of laundry lint can cause an explosion.
MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:38 amNo. Not at the cost of a Trump win.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:39 amDefinitely worse.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:40 amand they will now give us a decade worse than BO…
Trump is only 69. He could rule for several decades. Just look at Mugabe (92).
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:41 amnow he will be president for life, like cliff robertson in that horrible escape from new york sequel?
narciso (732bc0) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:42 amI’m getting a bit tired of the puerile, obnoxious and generally idiotic bits of fascist feces-flinging that seem to pass for comments from certain quarters.
(this was repeatedly toned down)
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:48 amNo. Not at the cost of a Trump win.
To paraphrase Mark: For what shall it profit us, if we shall gain the presidency, and lose our soul?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:50 amEnough with the “president for life” fantasies. Bush didn’t stay a minute past his allotted time, 0bama will be gone in exactly 325 days, 23 hours, and 5 minutes, and if God forbid Trump is elected he too will leave when his four or eight years are over. The reason is simple: the moment a president’s — any president’s — term expires the military stops obeying his commands.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:55 amso he’s endorsing cruz, is there something I’m missing?
No. He is calling — in the event of a Trump nomination — for an open party split, with an independent small-government constitution-abiding candidate. Perry, Walker, etc.
It probably cannot be anyone who has competed in the primaries thankfully or not, as too many states have sore-loser* laws. It is not clear however, that these would necessarily affect a Presidential candidate as the law is murky, but the lawfare would be terrible.
—–
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:08 am* (probably unconstitutional: U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton)
Milhouse, you assume that the Constitution remains unchanged, and that future changes are done without coercion.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:09 amthe point i’m making if he is a constitutionalist, he should support cruz, yet he does not.
narciso (732bc0) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:11 amWe have here a man who ADVOCATES government control of speech, civil and criminal penalties for badspeech, firewalling the Internet from badspeech outside government control, ruling by decree, torturing people in the medieval sense, an unspecified force of jackboots to get rid of undesirables and generally running amok.
But surely he would not stoop to amending the Constitution eleventy-seven times to make it more to his liking?
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:15 amMaybe he wants to simply make an anti-Trump statement to highlight how bad Trump is,
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:16 amrather than be written off by those saying,
“You’re just saying that because you are for Cruz“.
IDK
the point i’m making if he is a constitutionalist, he should support cruz, yet he does not.
Cruz has trouble including people.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:17 amThe president has no role in amending the constitution.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:24 amOf course he doesn’t know that.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:25 amUntil the one time they don’t. D’oh!
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:34 amSo you don’t support the reconstruction amendments?
njrob (6689f2) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:34 amwith a single word: SHAME!
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 9:38 am
I like it… “putz shaming”…
Colonel Haiku (b6b19d) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:37 amMy point is simple.
If Trump was pro illegal immigration there would be nothing differentiating him and the GoPe ruling class.
This is their line in the sand. Romney being the father of Obamacare, a Mass republican, pro abortion, squishy on all issues… it didn’t matter.
But stop the influx of slave labor… that’s war.
And just a reminder, I’m for Cruz because he’s the only conservative option. But let’s not pretend this establishment revolt is about anything other than their power and gravy train being threatened.
njrob (6689f2) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:37 amman these ivy league trashbabies are in a tizzy to beat the band
Do you think that the University of Pennsylvania is some public university with a powerhouse football team and a huge undergraduate program in Family Studies? ‘Cause it’s not. You many need to reacquaint yourself with the Ivy League members, happyfeet.
JVW (05e1e2) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:43 amNJRob –
> If Trump was pro illegal immigration there would be nothing differentiating him and the GoPe ruling class.
In this very post, the author talks about how Trump has called for opening up libel laws to make it easier to sue for libel; how Trump thinks the Chinese government was right to put down Tian An Men square protests the way they did; how Trump thinks the editor of the National Review should not be on TV; how he would be open to closing parts of the internet; and how he thinks Obama’s use of executive orders is a good precedent which should be followed.
And yet you say that there’s nothing differentiating him and the GOP’s ruling class.
So from what I can tell either,
(a) you think the GOP’s ruling class believes all of these things,
(b) you think that Trump doesn’t believe them and is just saying them for some reason,
or
(c) you think the report that Trump has said these things is a lie.
Which is it?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:57 amTrump is a true, modern day Fellatio Alger story… you gotta give him that.
Colonel Haiku (b6b19d) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:59 amI’d rather have Trump appointing a slew of O’Connor/ Kennedy squishes who MIGHT support the Constitution than Clinton or Sanders appointing young Sotomayors who won’t.
I’d be expecting Saul Goodman and Tom Hagan myself.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 11:42 amNJRob–
Would you support a military coup to deport the illegals? If not, there are limits. Now, clearly you do not find electing someone who has expressed contempt for [dimly understood] rules of law and the Constitution — not to mention a history of
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 11:48 ambriberytactical contributions and backroom dealing — to be over the line, but some of us do.The president has no role in amending the constitution.
Now, he doesn’t.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 11:59 amI think Trump says a lot of bombastic stuff because that’s his brand.
I think Trump has done business with China just like we have as a nation and hasn’t done the research into the evil they have pushed.
I think most politicans want to muzzle their political opponents but we fortunately have an inalienable right to speak out and petition the government for redress of grievances.
Any more?
njrob (6689f2) — 2/29/2016 @ 12:31 pmDid you vote for McCain or Romney? Because if you did I’m calling you a liar on your purity claim.
You don’t need a military coup to deport criminals who are illegal aliens. But it is a pretty straw man anyway.
Enforce the law. They are breaking the law by being here illegally. They are breaking the law by either not paying taxes, working under the table, or stealing government documents to fake a real identity. They are breaking the law, period.
How about we let them stay at your house without permission. You pay for their food, kids’ education, Healthcare and they will cook, clean and garden for you?
njrob (6689f2) — 2/29/2016 @ 12:35 pmSo that’s (b): you think that Trump doesn’t believe what he is saying and is just saying them because bombastic rhetoric is his brand.
So the next question is: how can I as a voter distinguish between the things Trump says that I should take seriously and those things he says which are just bombastic rhetoric?
I’m asking because as far as I can tell from Trump’s supporters the rule seems to be “the things he says which I like should be taken seriously while those which I don’t like are just bombastic rhetoric”, which doesn’t really work for me.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 12:37 pmA president who refuses to enforce the law of the land should be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate. If one political party prevents the constitutional removal of an illegitimate president, it is the duty of the military to remove him by force and hold open elections for a replacement.
ropelight (de8a32) — 2/29/2016 @ 12:37 pmYou can bet I’ll be quoting that one, Colonel.
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/29/2016 @ 12:49 pmTo reiterate, I’m a Cruz supporter and I know you won’t support him.
I don’t trust Trump at all. I do think he would receive a ton of public pressure to get a wall built since that agenda has fueled his populist candidacy. As for the rest, I have no idea.
What conservative values do you support and who would you support over Hillary this November?
njrob (6689f2) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:09 pmThose pesky oaths of loyalty to run as a Republican,mean what,again?
mike191 (4c004d) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:13 pmnjrob,
aphrael’s not a conservative. He’ll be voting for Hillary. He believes voter ID is an imposition upon people’s “liberty.”
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:19 pm“If one political party prevents the constitutional removal of an illegitimate president, it is the duty of the military to remove him by force and hold open elections for a replacement.”
– ropelight
The more you say things like this, the more your support for Il Douche makes sense.
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:20 pmropelight, the duty of the military is to obey the commands of the Commander-in-Chief. It is not to remove the Commander-in-Chief if they don’t like him.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:26 pmThat’s the CIA’s job.
nk (dbc370) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:27 pmRespectfully ropelight, it is the duty of the People to remove politicians who refuse to do their duty, not the military. If the People fail, then the country fails regardless of what the military does.
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:34 pmWhere does it say that? Because the Declaration states: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Then they banded an army and overthrew the King. They didn’t vote the King out, they bombed him out.
Rev. Hoagie™® (f4eb27) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:40 pmDid you vote for McCain or Romney?
I voted for both of them, as well as Bush Jr twice. I did not vote for Dole or Bush Sr the second time. In the case of Romney, I did so proudly and would do so again, and if you don’t like it GFY.
Because if you did I’m calling you a liar on your purity claim.
Did Romney not understand the Constitution? Did he brag about giving bribes? I fear I miss your point. That I voted for the GOP nominee, as such, was contingent upon them being actual GOP members, unlike Trump. I admit some ambivalence about McCain — a poor choice*. Romney would have won that election and McCain would only have been marginally better than Obama. But that’s retrospect; an easy game to play.
The military coup thing is that you seem to think that electing Trump is just a change in degree from what people have done before. This tells me you have completely lost the plot — Trump is running for KING. For Caesar. He’s quite open about it if you have the willingness to listen. He wants to be an egg-breaking trains-on-time-making strongman of the Mussolini variety and God help anyone who gets in his way.
So, no. Whom anyone voted for before doesn’t matter at all. Just “do you side with the wannbe dictator, or not?” Choose carefully.
—
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:51 pm* and one brought about by letting casual voters participate in GOP primaries, which I rail about elsewhere, and which Trump is using again. The GOPe has made every attempt to disenfranchise GOP voters over the years, and this year is the reducio ad absurdum.
“Where does it say that? Because the Declaration states: “A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Then they banded an army and overthrew the King. They didn’t vote the King out, they bombed him out.”
– Rev. Hoagie
“They” went on to write a pretty remarkable Constitution. One that provided mechanisms beyond “armed insurrection” for the removal of wannabe tyrants (like Donald Trump).
Leviticus (efada1) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:54 pmA president who refuses to enforce the law of the land should be impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate.
But this would make them responsible for passing stupid and unenforceable laws, or not funding enforcement while demanding it happen. So they don’t.
If one political party prevents the constitutional removal of an illegitimate president, it is the duty of the military to remove him by force and hold open elections for a replacement.
McClellan would have marched on Lincoln. Maybe that’s what you would have wanted. God only knows what Custer or MacArthur or (God help us) Curtis LeMay would have done.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 1:57 pm“They” went on to write a pretty remarkable Constitution.
Jefferson was out of town.
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 2:02 pm#68 — Rev, please note:
President ≠ king
Constitution ≠ Declaration of Independence
—
Our country is an experiment in self-government. We do not have a king or Politburo or ayatollahs or military coups or three wise-men, or any kind of training wheels. Nobody is going to hold our hand and take care of us: We’re it.
The instant we impose or accept such an authority, our experiment terminates.
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 2/29/2016 @ 2:08 pmUm, what the f*ck? If you weren’t already insane, this would be absolute proof that you’d become so.
The constitution is very clear that the military obeys the president and only the president, and has no role whatsoever in politics. If Congress, for whatever reason, will not remove a president then he remains the military’s commander in chief.
Wrong. The Continental Congress, as people’s representatives, voted to rebel against the UK. They then raised an army to do so. Had the congress voted against rebellion, no army would have had the right to rebel, at least according to the principles in the Declaration.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 2:15 pmThe revolution was against the UK’s elected government.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 2:16 pmNJRob, at 61: I’m not a conservative. I think I’ve been pretty consistent about that in the thirteen years I’ve been a commenter at this blog.
That said, I live in a state where it’s trivially easy to switch parties, and I am (reluctantly) coming to the conclusion that (a) insofar as I find Trump to be a serious threat to the country, (b) I have a responsibility to switch parties and vote in the Republican primary for *whichever* candidate has the best chance to defeat him – including Cruz, if he happens to be the man in that position. So: I might very well be voting for Sen. Cruz, at least in the primary.
(I’m also very likely to vote for a Republican in the open primary for Senate, as I have serious objections to both AG Harris AND Rep. Sanchez).
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:07 pmRopelight, at 59:
did you seriously just say that if the leadership of the US military believes the President is not enforcing the law, and the Congress has not impeached the President, the US military has a moral obligation to remove him?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:08 pmCruz Supporter, at 63:
I am still undecided about how I would vote in a general election where Sen. Clinton was on the ballot; it would really depend on her opposition.
I am on the record (quite vociferously) as refusing to vote for her in a primary in both 2008 and this year.
I have serious concerns about the concentration of political power implicated in electing as President the spouse of a former President. I think it violates the *spirit and intent* of the 22d amendment even as it doesn’t violate the lettter, and I would support a constitutional amendment to forbid it.
Against Mr. Trump, I would certainly vote for Sen. Clinton. Against Sen. Cruz I would likely vote third party.
I’m not sure my vote in a general election for President matters in the slightest, though. I’m a registered voter in the state of California, after all.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:11 pm@ Milhouse:
Re President ≠ king: It means a President is not the same as a king.
We’ll just have to agree to disagree.
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:12 pmLeviticus, at 64: this kind of rhetoric coming from Trump supporters is at least part of why Trump’s candidacy disturbs me so much – because I’m convinced that if he *does* attempt to destroy the system after being elected, he’ll have lots of support in doing so.
Long-term I think we need to do *something* to address the problems which are giving rise to that support.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:21 pmDonnie will be a big draw for every conscience-free opportunist in DC, as well as the crony capitalists and plain old four-flushers.
Good chance to take notes on who’s who, I say.
mojo (a3d457) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:44 pmOh, PS:
“did you seriously just say that if the leadership of the US military believes the President is not enforcing the law, and the Congress has not impeached the President, the US military has a moral obligation to remove him?”
Did I mention the Bolivarists?
mojo (a3d457) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:47 pmPons Asinorum, you don’t seem to understand that the UK was a democracy, and that the differences between a president and a king were irrelevant to the revolution. The people of the American colonies rebelled against the people of the UK and their elected government, not (except in a strictly formal sense) against the king, who was the people’s employee.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:59 pmI do not know the mechanism involved,
but I assume military take a pledge to uphold the Constitution,
just like Obama did.
So if Obama, or any President, said, “No, I’m not going”, whose responsibility would it be to do what first? Are the Secret Service people supposed to still say, “Yes Mr. President?” Is the, I assume military pilot, who flies the presidential helicopter supposed to say, “Where to, Mr. President?”
Obviously, it would need to be something more direct and specific than making deals with the Iranians to give them the atomic bomb.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:00 pmYeah, Ropelight has gone around the bend. I doubt he’s salvageable. And Papertiger has been a lying liar who lies a lot for quite some time now.
John Hitchcock (f3ad73) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:00 pmMD in Philly – oh, sure, if the President refuses to leave office after being impeached, then I’d accept the military removing him.
But ropelight was not describing that scenario; he was describing the scenario where the Legislature had not acted.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:02 pmYes, the military would have no role on taking the place of the president, or say who the president is,
but a soldier is under the obligation to refuse to follow an illegal order, correct?
Yes, far fetched.
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:03 pmMD in Philly, Ropelight claimed if a political party refused to oust a President who is unfit (by whose standards, he didn’t say), then the military was required to oust the President, without the due course taking place.
The Military Oath is to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and ropelight. Also, to obey all lawful orders of our superiors. And you can’t get much superior than CinC.
John Hitchcock (f3ad73) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:03 pmSo you’d count whoever was the president’s spouse for the majority of a term as having been president for that term? What if they weren’t married?
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:04 pmobey all lawful orders
MD in Philly (at the moment not in Philly) (deca84) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:08 pmaphrael, if you believe the spirit of the 22nd amendment is being flaunted by the Clintons, then doesn’t that belief hold regardless of who is running against her in the general election?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:10 pmWhat do you mean by “not going”? Why should he go anywhere? I’m going to guess that you mean after his term is over, in which case the answer is that the moment that happens he’s no longer the president, and neither the military nor the secret service are under his authority. At that point they would not be ousting a president, they’d be removing a trespasser from the White House.
But if you meant that the military’s oath to uphold the constitution could include removing a president who was acting contrary to the constitution, then no, it doesn’t. Of course they must not obey an illegal order, but they must still obey all legal orders of the officer who made the illegal one.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:11 pmR.I.P. actor George Kennedy
Icy (38ffb0) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:11 pmOf course, but what point are you trying to make by pointing that out? How can that be construed to support ropelight’s contention that the military have a role in ousting an unfit president?
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:13 pmCruz Supporter – yes. HOWEVER, at the same time, if i’m presented with a choice between flaunting the spirit of the 22d amendment and something *even worse than that*, then I have an obligation to stand against the something worse – to make common cause with the lesser evil against the greater evil.
I believe that Mr. Trump is far more of a threat to our republic than the concentration of power represented by Sen. Clinton, and will vote accordingly.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:16 pmActually ropelight didn’t even say an unfit president, but one who merely refuses to enforce the law of the land. So according to him if the president defers to state law on marijuana, and declines to send however many federal agents are needed to arrest everyone who grows, buys, or sells marijuana in a state that has no laws of its own against it, not only does congress have a duty to remove him, but if they don’t the military should mount a coup.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:17 pmMihouse, at 89: interesting questions.
I wouldn’t count the spouse as having been President, because that’s clearly not true; ultimate responsibility always lies with the President, after all. But I think spouses have *massive* influence over each other, and *should*; and so I *do* consider a spouse as having been too close to the levers of power.
A spouse for part of the term would still count, in my mind.
A non-married effective spouse? I’d probably have the same issue.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:18 pmFlouting.
Also, voting for someone who is ineligible, let alone someone who merely should be ineligible, is not itself against the constitution.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:19 pmHe is no longer in command. They refuse to obey him or protect him. They have no duty to; on the contrary, they would be violating their duty by following the orders of a person without lawful authority. Nature, a rope and a lamp-post take their course. It’s not complicated.
nk (dbc370) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:19 pmBut how would you write an amendment against it?
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:19 pmaphrael, would you also prohibit the president from being married, de jure or de facto, to someone who is not a natural born citizen, or who has not lived in the USA for 14 years?
What about being married someone who is a member of a foreign country’s legislature, as is the case with the Danish prime minister?
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:22 pmThanks for the clarifying replies.
MD not exactly in Philly (deca84) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:24 pm@ Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 3:59 pm
Haha, okay Millhouse, have fun.
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:27 pmMilhouse, at 101: marriage to a non-NBC doesn’t bother me. Marriage to a citizen who has spent a lot of time living abroad does not bother me. Being married to someone who is a member of a foreign country’s legislature would be enough to get me to vote against on conflict of interest grounds, sure.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:29 pmaphael, I certainly ascribe to the philosophy that we must choose the “lesser” of two evils. We do that most days of our lives.
But I think you’re failing to delineate between someone (Hillary) whom you believe would be violating the spirit of the Constitution’s 22nd Amendment be merely occuping the Oval Office VS someone who you oppose ideologically. (Trump).
At least with Trump, we have to wait until he violates the Constitution before we can accuse him of such—but his mere occupation of the office doesn’t violate the (spirit) of the Constitution, as you believe Hillary’s would—right?
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:32 pmIn other words, shouldn’t the Constitution take precedence over our political ideology? I’m just asking, that’s all.
It’s not that I oppose Trump ideologically. I mean, hell, I oppose *Sen Cruz* ideologically and yet i’m talking about voting for him.
It’s that I look at Trump and listen to what he says and am forced to conclude that either (a) he is a bald liar whose true intentions cannot be discerned in any way, or (b) he is a serious threat to the integrity of the Republic. Look back at the quotes at the top of this post – he is either a bully who does not believe in freedom of speech and assembly, or he is pretending to be one.
(b) means just about anyone is a lesser evil by comparison to him.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:34 pmDon’t you realize? The sleazy harvardtrash Republican establishment, they want the best of stuff for us. But right now, they got to do what’s right for them. Because it’s their time. Their time! Up there!
Down here, it’s our time. It’s our time down here with Mr. The Donald. That’s all over the second we ride up Troy’s bucket.
Y’all need to pause and reflect.
happyfeet (831175) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:35 pmWhy?
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:36 pmI don’t see what you find amusing about the information I gave you, of which you were clearly unaware.
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:37 pmWWI was started by three (or four?) of Queen Victoria’s grandchildren. Comparisons to Europe’s incestuous practices are noncupatory. America is not Europe.
nk (dbc370) — 2/29/2016 @ 4:53 pm78.Cruz Supporter, at 63:
I am still undecided about how I would vote in a general election where Sen. Clinton was on the ballot; it would really depend on her opposition.
I am on the record (quite vociferously) as refusing to vote for her in a primary in both 2008 and this year.
I have serious concerns about the concentration of political power implicated in electing as President the spouse of a former President. I think it violates the *spirit and intent* of the 22d amendment even as it doesn’t violate the lettter, and I would support a constitutional amendment to forbid it.
Against Mr. Trump, I would certainly vote for Sen. Clinton. Against Sen. Cruz I would likely vote third party.
I’m not sure my vote in a general election for President matters in the slightest, though. I’m a registered voter in the state of California, after all.
aphrael
……………………………
you really need to go to you tube and watch: Hillary, The movie…..
I haven’t heard of one person not being paid by her that would vote for her? How can anyone live with themselves and think Hillary is a good person.
jrt for Cruz (bc7456) — 2/29/2016 @ 5:37 pm> I haven’t heard of one person not being paid by her that would vote for her?
You need to get out more. Unless you honestly think that a majority of people voting in Democratic primaries are paid shills.
Honestly, this comment reminds me of the famous reporter who was baffled when Nixon won because she didn’t know anyone who was voting for him.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 2/29/2016 @ 5:39 pmjrt, nobody thinks Clinton is a good person. But what’s that got to do with it? aphrael said he’d vote for her only if the alternative was Trump. What’s your objection to that?
Milhouse (87c499) — 2/29/2016 @ 5:44 pmaphrael, the ‘reporter’ you’re probably thinking of who made the remark about Nixon Vs McGovern, was the late Pauline Kael, film critic then of The New Yorker.
Cruz Supporter (102c9a) — 2/29/2016 @ 5:52 pmAnyone, but particularly a non-liberal Republican or quasi-Republican (and therefore not a staunch liberal like Aphrael), who says he (or she) is so bothered by Donald Trump that he’d instead vote for Hillary Clinton has no ground to stand on. As far as I’m concerned, such a person is analogous to someone saying he picks prospective friends based on whether they are or aren’t running credit-card scams at the local mall, but ignores whether they’re tricking old ladies into giving up their life savings.
Ben Sasse, however, does takes an honest, principled position that I can totally respect.
Mark (6c93d5) — 2/29/2016 @ 6:27 pmI agree with Sasse and Cruz but until you guys figure out that gets you 12.5% of the electorate (25% of the Republicans) ….. You better find ways of wielding that sliver to get power and using it right.
Fact is Trumpster has shown that what passes for the right in the Repblican Party is not conservative but single issue voters whose issues happen to overlap with true conservatives. So for example being anti open borders does not make you conservative even if you vote for Consevatives. It just makes you Anti Democrat. For too many years we all confused them for Conservatives when in reality they were not … Which explains Trump’s support.
25% of the Rep are truly RINO
Rodney King's Spirit (3adc86) — 2/29/2016 @ 7:58 pm25% of R are truly Conservative
50% of R just hate Democrats and are all over the place on issues though they trend Conservative in how they self identify.
Randy Barnett suggests getting a third party in place to contest the election against Trump-Clinton.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/02/29/donald-trump-republican-party-elections-2016-third-party-column/81102918/
Kevin M (25bbee) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:05 pmthere’s no such thing as Randy Barnett
happyfeet (831175) — 2/29/2016 @ 8:11 pmMark – Trump is an open bully. Sen. Clinton is not. Furthermore, Sen. Clinton is an establishment figure and more or less a known quantity; her actions are predictable – Trump’s are not.
I think you can argue that Sen. Clinton represents the worst of the establishment and that electing her would continue all of the bad choices of the last generation of politicians. But I think it’s reasonable to argue that Mr. Trump represents a revolution against the establishment, led by the bitter and resentful, and that it’s impossible to tell what the outcome of that revolution would be.
I also think that Sen. Cruz wants to lead a revolution against the establishment – but I have enough of a sense for the man’s principles that I can predict the outcome of that and, while I don’t *like* it, I’d rather the known revolutionary quantity than the unknown revolutionary quantity – and I’d *certainly* prefer the predictable establishment quantity over the unknown revolutionary quantity.
I don’t think this is a liberal vs. conservative thing, incidentally.
aphrael (3f0569) — 2/29/2016 @ 10:39 pmPresident ≠ king quickly illustrates the point about self government. I did not go into detail as I might with a child because most regular readers here know the founding principles of our country and do not need an explanation of such a basic tenant.
That is what is so amusing, you missed the whole point then flew off into a tangent about something nobody was taking issue with — and then making assumptions anyone is arguing with you. Lol, nobody was.
If you still do not understand why President ≠ king is a true statement, try this:
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/1/2016 @ 11:37 amPons Asinorum, the differences between a president and a king were irrelevant to the USA revolution, and thus to the topic of discussion.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/1/2016 @ 12:18 pmMilhouse, no doubt you know that the American presidency as a head-of-state did not even exist at the time of the Revolution, neither did the Constitution, so of course nobody was fighting for the President (or the Constitution, for that matter), all of which is quite obvious.
Our country was founded as a self governed nation. I was using the inequality of President ≠ king as a quick means of illustrating that point without getting all wordy (perhaps too quick, lol.) That’s it.
Nothing to do with why who fought who.
Self government speaks to the reason why the military should not have the duty to remove the President, which was the topic of discussion I was trying to to have with Rev Hoagie.
(The expression Constitution ≠ Declaration of Independence was a way of quickly illustrating that these two founding documents have different functions; for example, one is law the other is not.)
—
The idea of self government, in direct opposition to tyrannical government, is the larger point of the Declaration of Independence. The difference between those concepts was what the Revolution was about. One can read that in the words of the Declaration; note the references to the “current King of Great Britain,” “a Prince,” and “the British Crown,” and how the first two references were related to tyranny, explicitly.
One of the great things about this document was not so much a declaration of independence to Great Britain specifically, but rather a declaration of independence to tyranny entirely. This was the sounding of a people determined to form a self governed nation.
No “king or Politburo or ayatollahs or military coups or three wise-men, or any kind of training wheels.”
aka: President ≠ king
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/1/2016 @ 8:57 pmAs was the UK at the time.
George III was not in any way a tyrant, and whatever tyranny the colonies rebelled against was that of the people of the United Kingdom and their elected government. That is what you don’t seem to understand.
I understand the point you were trying to make, and I’m telling you it’s incorrect. Hoagie claimed that since the British administration of the colonies was ousted in a military coup, it’s appropriate for today’s military, in extremis, to oust a bad administration again. Your reply is that that was all good and well for a king, but the USA administration is a different kind of creature, which it is not appropriate for the military to oust.
That reply depends on the incorrect assumption that the UK was not self-governing but ruled by a king with no democratic mandate. The truth is that the UK was self-governing, the revolution of 1688 had established the principle that Parliament, not the king, is sovereign, and in 1701 Parliament drove that home by conducting an executive search for a successor to Queen Anne, just as any modern company searches for a new CEO. Parliament chose to hire Sophie of Hanover, and negotiated a contract with her, and that contract was the basis for George III’s incumbency, as it is for Elizabeth II’s today. You can’t get much more democratic than that.
Elizabeth is queen today not because her ancestors murdered the previous incumbents, or conquered a country and imposed their rule on an unwilling populace, but because her ancestress applied to an elected legislature for a job and was hired; and she remains in that job only so long as the elected legislature decides not to fire her. And the same was true of George. A military coup to remove him would have been as inappropriate as one would be today to remove a US president.
More to the point, a military coup to remove the elected UK government would have been just as inappropriate then as it would be today. The US revolution was not a military coup but a political decision by the elected legislatures of the colonies. If they had declined to act, then the revolution would have been illegitimate. Today too, it is up to the elected legislature to remove a misbehaving president, and if it declines to do so then the military has no right to countermand that decision.
Now do you see what my point is?
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/2/2016 @ 8:09 amLol, nice try, but no. Self government is more than just a form of democracy. It begins with the ideals so well expressed by Thomas Jefferson:
Without these Rights being first and foremost protected by the Law, there can be no self government.
To have a self government, there can be no political classes (the House of Lords should be your first clue that there is a problem, lol.)
To have a self government, the powers of the local government must be protected against the powers of the central government (this idea would find expression by the Founding Fathers in federalism and the Bill of Rights.) The British crown often negated local laws passed by the colonists.
There is so much more:
http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1462&context=eandc
http://www.ushistory.org/gov/2.asp
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/
http://study.com/academy/lesson/what-is-self-government-definition-lesson-quiz.html
Hmm… believe Milhouse, believe the Declaration of Independence…believe Milhouse, believe the Declaration of Independence…
I’m gonna go with the Declaration. The authors explicitly (and cleverly) addressed all the tyrannical grievances done to them under the authority of the crown. Can’t miss it — the big list that follows the second paragraph, uses the pronoun “he” quite a bit. Feel free to argue that they were in error, lol:
Note, I never mentioned King George III by name, and neither does the Declaration of Independence (you might want to ask yourself “why.”) I quoted verbatim the king references in the Declaration of Independence. You are the only one mentioning old George by name. (Kinda like the differences between King and king.)
The Revolution was, at a minimum, about the governed ousting an unelected government – the colonists did not elect the British officials who ruled over them, IOW, tyranny; see Declaration of Independence.
No assumption necessary — the colonists did not elect the British officials who ruled over them, ie, tyranny; see Declaration of Independence. That document expresses it far better than I can; and for all ages, for all peoples, and not just against the British crown, but against all forms of tyrannical government.
Yes, I just disagree with your reasoning — hey, it happens, lol.
(yes, I know; the feeling is, no doubt, mutual, lol.)
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/2/2016 @ 9:04 pmSays who? You’re just making s**t up.
Really?! In which state are local governments’ powers protected against those of the state? None. And so it has always been. Local government is a creation of the state, and completely subject to it. State-Federal relations are different precisely because the states created the federation, not the other way around. That isn’t the case in the UK, and wasn’t then. Nobody expected it to be.
By the way, the crown is the government, not the king. But yes, the declaration did blame the king for lots of things. Dishonestly. Much of the declaration was a load of cr*p. It’s propaganda, not philosophy.
Indeed it was, in the sense that they didn’t elect it. The people of the UK did. The revolution was against them, not against the king. Therefore the differences between presidents and kings are irrelevant to its legitimacy.
If the people of DC or Puerto Rico should one day rebel against the USA, would they be rebelling against a king? No. But would there be any recognizable distinction between their rebellion and that of 1775? No. They’d be doing exactly what the colonies did, rebelling against a government that was elected by other people. The fact that it’s headed by a president and not a king would make no difference.
What does make a difference is that the rebellion was carried out by the people’s elected representatives, not by the military. Therefore it cannot serve as a precedent for a military coup.
Milhouse (87c499) — 3/3/2016 @ 4:31 pmHaha, you didn’t read the links did you: Purdue U, Standford U, T Jefferson, J Locke. You have no idea about what self government is, worse you choose to remain ignorant. There is enormous material about self government and what that means, from world class scholars to famous philosophers. All you had to do was just look it up for youself, lol.
Heh, you are really lost. You may want to read the Bill of Rights, 10th amendment. Also you may want to educate yourself on what a Federalism is. Hint: learn what the federal part of “Federal Republic” is.
All of which was explained in the sources I cited above (I even referenced federalism and 10th amendment, which you ignored.) In fact, one of the sources goes into great detail about why local power must be protected, and what the proper balance between local and central powers are, and why that is required to have self government.
Oh, that’s right, you are not a big fan of scholarship and sourcing — you don’t read them. Heck you don’t even use them. It’d be nice if you could, I dunno, link a source to one of your “facts.”
Lol, guess you missed the Federalist Papers and what the brew-ha was all about. I’d link it, but since you are not a big fan of reading citations, what’s the point.
Not sense, but actuality. The colonists did not elect the British officials who ruled over them. Really it’s true, just read the Decla…. . Oh yeah, forgot, you think most of the Declaration of Independence is, how’d you put it…”a load of cr*p” … Hahahahaha, Hahahaha, sides hurt! You went there!
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/3/2016 @ 8:12 pmOh no, stop……hahahahahahahahah. Sides hurt!
The Declaration of Independence is wrong!
Okay, genius. What did they know anyway. Lol!
Pons Asinorum (49e2e8) — 3/3/2016 @ 8:13 pm