Things That Amaze Me: Constitutional Ignorance, Part 2

 

If you've been keeping up with current events, then you probably could have predicted what today's blog topic was going to be.  Considering how much the ignoramuses on the libtard left have been screaming after President Trump revoked access to the White House for CNN, Politico, and MS Now, it kinda figures that would be my next topic in the "Things That Amaze Me" series.

Once again, the people on the libtard left are making claims about Constitutional rights, and are doing nothing but proving two things:  how much they hate ANYTHING that Trump does, and just how much they DON'T know about the United States Constitution.  The left is now screaming that Trump violated the Constitutional rights of those three news agencies, and that they have a Constitutional right to have access to the White House.  

Of course those of us with common sense and a minimum understanding of how the Constitution works knows that they're 100% wrong, as usual.

So let's take a look at exactly what the First Amendment says, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Somebody please show me where access to the White House is mentioned in those words.  

Those on the left will tell you that Trump violated the Constitution  because he's 'abridging the freedom of the press,' and they are 100% wrong.  If Trump had come out and told them that they couldn't print something or couldn't report on something at all, THEN he would be in violation of the First Amendment.  But he hasn't done that.  He simply denied them access to the White House, which means they can't attend press briefings.

So if they can't attend the press briefings, then how are they supposed to report on what was said?  Simple - they use the White House Press Release that every news agency in the United States and several overseas agencies are sent after every single press conference.  After all, where do you think the smaller news agencies who don't have a representative at the White House get their information from?  Why, from the press release, of course.

No, the left is bitching because Trump did to those agencies what the Biden administration did when they barred a particular reporter from attending the briefings because he was asking questions that made Biden look bad (which wasn't hard to do).  After all, it's OK when a libtard does it, but when a conservative does it the world is coming to an end.  They're bitching because now those fake news agencies don't have a platform from which to spout their nonsensical questions which are intended not to get an answer or learn the truth but to make a veiled accusation against Trump.   

I learned a very long time ago that NO liberal news agency is the least bit concerned with getting at the truth.  All they want is something that they can twist and shape into something that fits their agenda, and if they can't make it fit then they'll just lie about it.  They do this safe in the knowledge that no one will do anything about it because, well, the First Amendment, you know.

Until Trump came along and said, "Nope, that bullshit ain't gonna fly!"  He has never been shy about calling out the fake news agencies, and now that he's in his second term and isn't eligible to run for a third, he can say or do almost anything he wants because he doesn't have to worry about alienating voters.  He knows this and man, is he taking advantage of it!

Do I support Trump's actions in this?  Not that it matters in the grand scheme of things, but yeah, I do - 100%.  If I were President I'd kick all of the libtard news agencies out on their asses and let them get their news from the press releases just like everyone else.

Guess it's a good thing I'm not President, huh?

Deo Vindice

IHC

 

  

Things That Amaze Me: Constitutional Ignorance, Part 1

 

Thought I'd start a new feature on my blog, "Things That Amaze Me," and I can't think of a better topic to start off with than just how ignorant the average American citizen is of the United States Constitution.

This got started with a post I saw on Facebook which asked the question, "Which of these men is ineligible to become President?" and listed NObama, Trump, Clinton, and GW Bush as the choices.  Seems like a simple question, right?  

Uh-uh, it's not, and the people who responded to the question immediately showed just how ignorant of the US Constitution they truly are.  Some people said all of the, some said none of them, some said that they could serve 10 years as President, and other ignorant shit like that.  (I almost said 'stupid,' but that word doesn't fit.  Ignorance is not having the knowledge or experience, while stupid is just not having the brains.  Well, maybe it fits, you tell me.)

And the correct answer?  None of them, and here's why.

A direct quote from Article 22, Section 1of the US Constitution:  

"No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. But this Article shall not apply to any person holding the office of President when this Article was proposed by the Congress, and shall not prevent any person who may be holding the office of President, or acting as President, during the term within which this Article becomes operative from holding the office of President or acting as President during the remainder of such term."

The key word here is "ELECTED."  A man cannot be ELECTED to the office of President more than twice, and if he's served two years of a term as President upon the departure of the previous President, then he can only be elected ONCE.   

What it does not address is a former President who has served two terms getting elected as Vice President and then succeeding to the office of President when the elected President leaves office before his term is over.  

Interesting, huh?  So what that means - and this is every liberal's nightmare - that Trump could run with Vance in 2028 as the Vice Presidential candidate, and after they win (which they would) Vance could resign and let Trump take over as President.

Sounds kinda far out there, doesn't it?  Well, it is in a way, but the truth is that there's absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prohibits this.  But to be reasonable (a word unknown to the liberal left) and realistic (another word unknown to the liberal left) something like this would never happen.  I don't think Trump would ever run for VP, and when Vance runs - and he most assuredly will - after he wins (which he will) he won't leave office until his term is over or unless he dies before then, God forbid.

But the point here is that a vast majority of the people had no idea what the Constitution says about this, and they showed their ignorance on Facebook.

So be honest - did YOU know this?  If you did, good on ya!  If you didn't, now you do.

And if you didn't, then maybe it's time you read the Constitution, huh?  And when it gets to the part about line of succession for the office of President, pay attention.

Deo Vindice

IHC