The Biggest Losers – Was It A Trifecta?
The United States of America, in particular the Constitution, was the biggest loser in the First Presidential Debate of 2016. The runner-ups were the media followed closely by the two candidates.
The position that the candidates hold on “Stop and Frisk” is outrageous. Trump endorsing it and Hillary stating that it should be used only when necessary. I take that to mean only on “super predators”. This type of oppressive force was one of the major reasons that the citizens of Boston back in the 1770’s protested against the standing army that the British had deployed on the streets of that fine American city.
Illegal search was also a driving force of the anti-federalist during many of the 13 State’s Constitutional Ratification Conventions. Illegal search was a major point in their heated discussions of those conventions. Their insistence to clarify a citizen’s rights against the State even convinced the federalist to expound upon it. The ratification of the Constitution would ensue partially due to the promise of a “Bill of Rights” type amendments that were to address illegal search and seizure. *
The second assault against the constitution is the fact that both candidate support the concept that if a citizens name appears on a government generated secretive list it would be acceptable to strip that citizen of their Constitutional rights. To use a secretive list, that who knows the criteria that will land you on it, as a reason to deny your 2nd Amendment ** right is scary. Am I on the “No Fly” list for writing this blog? I will not know until I attempt to book my next flight.
My point is that “list” should not be to used to strip the constitutional rights of citizens. List are arbitrarily created by agenda driven bureaucrats. Governmental lists are most often used in an immoral and unjust manner. They have been proven to be wrong and harmful to many innocent citizens. Is there another Joe McCarty type lurking in the shadows of the NSA or the TSA? Why let habeas corpus get in the way of another failed governmental security ploy.
The United States of America does not have a glowing history of it’s usage of governmental list. I’m sure the Japanese-American community might have a relevant argument against “lists”. Maybe take a look at the “red” screenwriters in Hollywood during the 1950’s. A vote for either of these demagogues will ensure a future of limited rights for the compliant and restricted rights, if any, for the critics.
In the wake of Monday nights assaults on the 4th and 2nd amendment one would think that the “cracker jack” investigative reporters of mainstream media would have been incensed. No, it is most frightening that the compliant media either missed it or choose not to address the tyrannical stance of the candidates.
The news from the debate should have included a review of the Presidential Oath of Office. The oath requires their pledge to defend the Constitution, that includes the Bill of Rights. So, how can a candidate get away with statements that defy and undermine the Constitution? I assume the media “marketeers” believe a spat and statements made by an ex-reality TV host and an ex-beauty contestant is more relevant than defending the Constitution. Maybe I should correct my assumption to include that it may motivate more viewers to tune in to the next episode.
When did mainstream media become just another reality TV show? I guess the Presidential Race Show does have a winning formula. In the battle for power it is the villains that make good reality TV. In this show we have two of them running for President.
No, again I must correct myself. The BIGGEST losers were the Citizens of the United States. We deserve better and we have to demand it. We need better candidates and a better media that stops being a mouth piece for the Washington status quo.
*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
**A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.