Shredding the Constitution

[lundbaek]

I am focusing on the topic of this thread: "Shredding the Constitution" It is happening, as prophesied. I am not praising President Trump for his service as POTUS. But I do call attention to various individuals in government and elsewhere who I believe are a danger to the independence of the United States as a nation, and who are in position to influence Latter-day Saints to espouse candidates and programs that are dangerous to our liberty.

[Original_Intent]

Check out the 4:00-4:45 segment. Vintage Mitt. So fake.


I'm with Arenera for once - this declaration of a national emergency is wrong, dead wrong. I've said it before, I am not a super fan of Trump, I did not vote for Trump. What I like about him is his anti-NWO stance which has the globalists hating him. And, back to Mitt, he is SUCH a globalist boot-licker. May be a fine upstanding person, I think it is likely. But he so badly wants to sit at the cool kids table, he would sell this country out in a heartbeat, and the worst thing is he probably would do so with a clear conscience thinking he had done a great thing for the nation. Just like RomneyCare.

[Arenera]

in position to influence Latter-day Saints to espouse candidates and programs that are dangerous to our liberty.

Hey, just like this thread!

[Fiannan]

Who is an enemy of the Constitution? President Trump.

I hope all of you are outraged today.

I am outraged! My daughter was supposed to clean the kitchen if I took her dog out for a walk. When I got back, the kitchen was still a mess.

Oh well, her dog appreciated the walk.

[Serragon]

What exactly did he do that you think was unconstitutional?

It violates Article I of the Constitution, congress, not the president, controls the pursestrings. If they let him do this they will regret it by and by when another president decide that he can just circumvent congress and the constitution on say something like national health car, climate change or anything else.

Previous presidents have been doing this on a regular basis. We currently have 31 active national emergencies dating all the way back to the Clinton years.

It seems rather disengenuous of Arenera to start a thread accusing Trump of shredding the constitution when he has been the least abusive of this power of any modern president.

Perhaps there are threads by Arenera accusing Obama and Clinton of shredding the constitution as well? But it is clear from previous threads that Arenera is anti Trump and not pro-constitution. This is just a convenient stool for him on which to grandstand.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/07/politics ... index.html

Just because others have done damage to the Constitution does not mean that it is OK to do so.

On the surface, this seems like a true principle. But digging a little deeper reveals it to be a tool of the tyrant.

The damage has already been done 40+ years ago. The executive branch took this power and congress abdicated. It has been the law of the land since.

I agree that it would be preferable if this had never happened. But what it worse is an unequal application of current standard. Requiring the current president to operate under different standards than his predecessors allows for the tyranny of the democrats.

Imagine playing a game of basketball where one team was fouling without penalty while the other never committed the foul. It is necessary that both teams operate on an equal basis, even if that mean exceeding the original rules of the game. Sometimes this is the only thing that will get everyone playing by the rules again.

We should strive to get back to a literal interpretation of the constitution. But in the meantime, we should not allow our purity of principle to be used as a weapon of tyranny against us. We should not tie President Trumps hands behind his back while others operate unfettered.

[marc]

Which of all the 2016 presidential candidates would have been any more loyal to the U.S. Constitution?

Did anybody vote for the Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle?

I did.

[Lexew1899]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

[Arenera]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

[Serragon]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

Curious why it took you 40+ years before this type of action began to concern you....

[gkearney]

And then there is this...

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/sta ... 3079431168

[TheSnail]

Who is an enemy of the Constitution? President Trump.

I hope all of you are outraged today.

What exactly did he do that you think was unconstitutional?

Declaring a National Emergency. It isn't. Redirecting Military funds to a wall. Congress decides where money goes, not the wannabe dictator.

Congress gave this authority to the president. Why weren't you complaining when Obama was declaring national emergencies? If you care about the constitution, why aren't you complaining about infringing on the 2nd amendment? Oh yeah, you are in favor of that. You don't care about the constitution. You're trying to stir things up to push your unconstitutional agenda by sowing discord among your opponents. This isn't the only place where this tactic is taking place, so don't think that it's not being noticed.

[TheSnail]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

Curious why it took you 40+ years before this type of action began to concern you....

It's only a problem if it slows down communism.

[TheSnail]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

That's attempted mind reading. Lots of emergencies get ignored by presidents, and they don't have to do anything about it. In fact, this emergency has been going on for at least 20 years, and previous presidents have done nothing about it.

Caravans of illegal aliens are not coming through the ports of entry, they are coming through the border, therefore the emergency is at the border.

[BeNotDeceived]

Gerrymandering is a murderous method employed by secret combinations to subvert our constitution. As originally written, Hillary would be VP, but thankfully that flaw was amended away. Term limits may be part of a solution, but things are spinning out of control. Hang on we’re going in for a crash landing with sudden impact during candidate selections, most likely near when the moons shadow doth again cross several of the lower 48.

Thankfully, were ok for now, with Trump at the helm, willing to employ executive action to delay disaster.

[David13]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

That's attempted mind reading. Lots of emergencies get ignored by presidents, and they don't have to do anything about it. In fact, this emergency has been going on for at least 20 years, and previous presidents have done nothing about it.

Caravans of illegal aliens are not coming through the ports of entry, they are coming through the border, therefore the emergency is at the border.

For many many years, they have been going over land, over barren, uninhabited land mostly in Arizona, or much in Arizona. In caravans, or groups of 5 or 10 or so, as they could get a guide to take them.

That has been the situation for many years now, and that is something that was rather common knowledge in southern California.
dc

[David13]

The way that I saw it set forth with the myriad of emergency orders was, Oblabama's was to benefit Berundians, or something, and likewise with Bush the Younger and Clinton, some foreign people, etc.

And Trump does this for the benefit of ... the American people? Well, isn't that an unconstitutional outrage.
dc

[LateOutOfBed]

Which of all the 2016 presidential candidates would have been any more loyal to the U.S. Constitution?

Did anybody vote for the Constitution Party candidate Darrell Castle?

Yup, he got my vote

[Arenera]

He didn't have to declare a national emergency. Congress is a kleptocratic institution, so he had no choice. When you have drug cartels controlling large areas of our borders, trafficking drugs and humans, it is clear it is a national emergency. Too many children especially being sex trafficked. Sickening that people don't think that is an emergency.

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

That's attempted mind reading. Lots of emergencies get ignored by presidents, and they don't have to do anything about it. In fact, this emergency has been going on for at least 20 years, and previous presidents have done nothing about it.

Caravans of illegal aliens are not coming through the ports of entry, they are coming through the border, therefore the emergency is at the border.

For many many years, they have been going over land, over barren, uninhabited land mostly in Arizona, or much in Arizona. In caravans, or groups of 5 or 10 or so, as they could get a guide to take them.

That has been the situation for many years now, and that is something that was rather common knowledge in southern California.
dc

Let’s do some math.

398,000 people came across the border in 2018. Well, Trump and the GOP were in control, hmmmmm.

Ok, 398k / 10 = 39,800 groups of 10. 39,800 / 365 = 109 groups per day.

So you are saying 109 groups per day are coming across unfenced border? Help Trump out, get ur guns and go protect the border.

[David13]

Trump said in his comments, I didn’t have to. By his own submission, it is not an emergency.

Where have you been for the last 20 years? The problems are the port of entries. A wall doesn’t fix that.

That's attempted mind reading. Lots of emergencies get ignored by presidents, and they don't have to do anything about it. In fact, this emergency has been going on for at least 20 years, and previous presidents have done nothing about it.

Caravans of illegal aliens are not coming through the ports of entry, they are coming through the border, therefore the emergency is at the border.

For many many years, they have been going over land, over barren, uninhabited land mostly in Arizona, or much in Arizona. In caravans, or groups of 5 or 10 or so, as they could get a guide to take them.

That has been the situation for many years now, and that is something that was rather common knowledge in southern California.
dc

Let’s do some math.

398,000 people came across the border in 2018. Well, Trump and the GOP were in control, hmmmmm.

Ok, 398k / 10 = 39,800 groups of 10. 39,800 / 365 = 109 groups per day.

So you are saying 109 groups per day are coming across unfenced border? Help Trump out, get ur guns and go protect the border.

So now all of a sudden you are a mathematician, huh? That's the biggest joke you've come up with yet.
dc

[lundbaek]

This is an email that I originally wrote back in 2014 to address the concern of myself and other LDS friends about the lack of concern expressed by LDS Church authorities in recent years (since 1988 by my reckoning) about the responsibilities of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to learn, uphold, and abide by the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

From Jerome Horowitz, author of "The Elders of Israel And The Constitution" and "The United States Has Two Constitutions - The Gospel Key to Our True Constitution"
"Confirming our telephone conversation I think the Church is cautious about openly participating in freedom promotion activities partly because of concern about government retribution that might unduly hinder its primary religious mission and partly because so many members have been indoctrinated to favor federal dominance and federal welfare and regulation that there is concern that a strong constitutional position might split the Church." (Jerome Horowitz first came to my attention when his book "The Elders of Israel And The Constitution" was recommended by Elder Ezra Taft Benson during the April 1972 Church General Conference.)


From our area seventy to me
"Thank you for your recent letter and concerns about teaching the U.S. Constitution. I love the fact that you have made this apart of your teaching in the home. I love the freedoms we enjoy because of the Constitution and feel, as do you, that there are troubling things out there that are putting the Constitution at risk.

"Of course, the concern for priesthood leaders is the difficulty when a church sponsored "U.S. Constitution" presentation becomes a political forum for a wonderful member who believes he/she is doing the right thing. The members attending a fireside of this nature general fall into two camps. Those politically "in-line" with the presenter see no concerns with the presentation. Those who have a different political bent feel like the church is sponsoring a political rally for party with whom the presenter is aligned. Hard feelings ensue.

"Additionally, when this occurs (a "U.S. Constitution" fireside that becomes a political rally) it is almost impossible for the presiding priesthood leader to stop the presentation. It is more difficult when the presenter is a member residing outside the unit boundaries where the presentation is being given.

"Thank you again for your letter. I have no problem with families, wards and stakes providing teaching about the U.S. Constitution that is consistent with gospel principles. I would recommend that anyone presenting in ward or stake settings be individuals residing within the ward or stake boundaries or individuals known by the local priesthood leaders."


This I think gives a good indication of the two major objections to discussing the US Constitution and the doctrinal imperative LDS people have to learn, uphold, and abide by the principles of the US Constitution. I and a few others have tried our best to persuade our local Church authorities to organize events, especially firesides, for the purpose of educating members, especially younger members like YM & YW & young single adults, about the importance of the US Constitution and freedom. I have gotten a number of responses like these, as have other members as well. I suspose one could get the idea that there is no interest in or even opposition to members promoting our sacred duty to honour the Constitution and to honour freedom, as President Packer stated to the 2009 Provo Freedom Festival, up at 50 East North Temple St. in SLC. But I think the concern is there, but being kept under wraps for the reasons stated above.
In May of this year (2014) Elder Dallin Oaks stated in an interview on KSL NewsRadio in SLC "I see it as a responsibility for well educated citizens, members of the bar and opinion leaders to be acquainted with the United States Constitution and its guarantees."
Also, a good friend is home teacher to Elder L. Tom Perry. I had asked him to ask Elder Perry if members of the Church are still responsible to abide by the US Constitution. My friend emailed me back: "Just got home from HT. Should members of the Church still study and live by the US Constitution? "Absolutely!" He seemed quite disgusted about what is going on in this country but reiterated that the Constitution has not become less, but more important. in our day."

[Arenera]

This is an email that I originally wrote back in 2014 to address the concern of myself and other LDS friends about the lack of concern expressed by LDS Church authorities in recent years (since 1988 by my reckoning) about the responsibilities of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to learn, uphold, and abide by the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

From Jerome Horowitz, author of "The Elders of Israel And The Constitution" and "The United States Has Two Constitutions - The Gospel Key to Our True Constitution"
"Confirming our telephone conversation I think the Church is cautious about openly participating in freedom promotion activities partly because of concern about government retribution that might unduly hinder its primary religious mission and partly because so many members have been indoctrinated to favor federal dominance and federal welfare and regulation that there is concern that a strong constitutional position might split the Church." (Jerome Horowitz first came to my attention when his book "The Elders of Israel And The Constitution" was recommended by Elder Ezra Taft Benson during the April 1972 Church General Conference.)


From our area seventy to me
"Thank you for your recent letter and concerns about teaching the U.S. Constitution. I love the fact that you have made this apart of your teaching in the home. I love the freedoms we enjoy because of the Constitution and feel, as do you, that there are troubling things out there that are putting the Constitution at risk.

"Of course, the concern for priesthood leaders is the difficulty when a church sponsored "U.S. Constitution" presentation becomes a political forum for a wonderful member who believes he/she is doing the right thing. The members attending a fireside of this nature general fall into two camps. Those politically "in-line" with the presenter see no concerns with the presentation. Those who have a different political bent feel like the church is sponsoring a political rally for party with whom the presenter is aligned. Hard feelings ensue.

"Additionally, when this occurs (a "U.S. Constitution" fireside that becomes a political rally) it is almost impossible for the presiding priesthood leader to stop the presentation. It is more difficult when the presenter is a member residing outside the unit boundaries where the presentation is being given.

"Thank you again for your letter. I have no problem with families, wards and stakes providing teaching about the U.S. Constitution that is consistent with gospel principles. I would recommend that anyone presenting in ward or stake settings be individuals residing within the ward or stake boundaries or individuals known by the local priesthood leaders."


This I think gives a good indication of the two major objections to discussing the US Constitution and the doctrinal imperative LDS people have to learn, uphold, and abide by the principles of the US Constitution. I and a few others have tried our best to persuade our local Church authorities to organize events, especially firesides, for the purpose of educating members, especially younger members like YM & YW & young single adults, about the importance of the US Constitution and freedom. I have gotten a number of responses like these, as have other members as well. I suspose one could get the idea that there is no interest in or even opposition to members promoting our sacred duty to honour the Constitution and to honour freedom, as President Packer stated to the 2009 Provo Freedom Festival, up at 50 East North Temple St. in SLC. But I think the concern is there, but being kept under wraps for the reasons stated above.
In May of this year (2014) Elder Dallin Oaks stated in an interview on KSL NewsRadio in SLC "I see it as a responsibility for well educated citizens, members of the bar and opinion leaders to be acquainted with the United States Constitution and its guarantees."
Also, a good friend is home teacher to Elder L. Tom Perry. I had asked him to ask Elder Perry if members of the Church are still responsible to abide by the US Constitution. My friend emailed me back: "Just got home from HT. Should members of the Church still study and live by the US Constitution? "Absolutely!" He seemed quite disgusted about what is going on in this country but reiterated that the Constitution has not become less, but more important. in our day."

Should members of the Church still study and live by the US Constitution? "Absolutely!"

So why aren’t y’all outraged about this move Trump is doing? This is right now!

You guys aren’t Constitution hawks.

[Fiannan]

So why aren’t y’all outraged about this move Trump is doing? This is right now!

You guys aren’t Constitution hawks.

You come home and find someone uninvited crawling into your bedroom window, someone else picking the lock on your front door and someone else setting up a tent in your front yard.

Would you call that an emergency or not?

[lundbaek]

I am aware of several members of the LDSFF who have studied the US Constitution and not only live by it themselves but also try to persuade others to study and live by it. I think all of us realize that President Trump is not seriously abiding by the Constitution, but neither does Mitt Romney.

[Arenera]

I am aware of several members of the LDSFF who have studied the US Constitution and not only live by it themselves but also try to persuade others to study and live by it. I think all of us realize that President Trump is not seriously abiding by the Constitution, but neither does Mitt Romney.

I hope they do a Joint Resolution so we can see how they vote. You might be eating your words.

[MMbelieve]

So why aren’t y’all outraged about this move Trump is doing? This is right now!

You guys aren’t Constitution hawks.

You come home and find someone uninvited crawling into your bedroom window, someone else picking the lock on your front door and someone else setting up a tent in your front yard.

Would you call that an emergency or not?

Its quite presidential what Trump is doing. The rest of our leaders are actually fighting against him which to me is wrong. We really messed up having two groups instead of one group representing one country. I think we should divide the country in two and let the democrates have whatever they want on their side.

He doing whats needed for our country (is it perfect, no) when there are stupid leaders who only want to cause problems and prevent our security. Makes no sense as to why.