Weaponization of Constitutional “Norms”

Sub­mit­ted by George McClel­lan

We are con­sis­tent­ly being raz­zled and daz­zled by the depth of non­sense con­stant­ly being repeat­ed to us by our news media to the point we no longer hear what’s being said, just agree­ing to it. Print­ed news arti­cles for exam­ple, espe­cial­ly from the left, present “news”  framed in the light of their social­ist agen­da in terms of some Trump com­mit­ting some offense against jus­tice or due process. In dis­cussing Trumps Exec­u­tive Orders for exam­ple, they will write some­thing like: “Trump par­doned “right­ful­ly” con­vict­ed offend­ers of J6 offens­es” or, “The Mary­land man was “wrong­ly” deport­ed,” etc., etc.  They stick those lit­tle adjec­tives in there and while many of us rec­og­nize the rhetor­i­cal trick, most don’t, but it con­tin­ues on and on con­firm­ing the medi­a’s lega­cy of dis­hon­esty. It is espe­cial­ly oner­ous when it con­cerns any­thing Don­ald Trump touch­es espe­cial­ly pol­i­cy mat­ters. The media, in all its forms, have become the Left­’s mali­cious organs mas­querad­ing them­selves as experts on for­eign or domes­tic pol­i­cy. How do they do it?  By redefin­ing what are Norms and turn­ing them into prece­dents!

The term, as used in their ver­nac­u­lar, is as they want it applied to Con­sti­tu­tion­al law and the admin­is­tra­tion of jus­tice as prece­dents. They use the term “Con­sti­tu­tion­al Norms” like it’s already accept­able jurispru­dence and we demure­ly accept it. If that were true we would have no need for courts or judges, would we? When Democ­rats do some­thing out­ra­geous, they claim it’s con­sis­tent with “Con­sti­tu­tion­al norms” (prece­dent). If Repub­li­cans do some­thing the Democ­rats don’t like then it becomes a “seri­ous” vio­la­tion of Con­sti­tu­tion­al  norms. For those who can read, the norms are clear­ly set forth in the US Con­sti­tu­tion. Thou­sands of small pock­et size book­lets of the Con­sti­tu­tion are dis­pensed year­ly by Hills­dale Col­lege, Char­lie Kirk’s Turn­ing Point group and oth­er con­ser­v­a­tive Amer­i­can groups.

Where we face some Con­sti­tu­tion­al dan­ger is in the Supreme Court where Left­ists Jus­tices,  select­ed polit­i­cal­ly if the pres­i­dent is of their par­ty, for the adher­ence to the par­ty agen­da and Con­ser­v­a­tive Jus­tices for their adher­ence to the Con­sti­tu­tion. Present­ly, three women Jurists, Left­ists all, Ketan­ji Brown Jack­son, Sonia Sotomay­or and Ele­na Kagan, have demon­strat­ed com­pe­tence lev­els less than the our coun­try deserves. In con­sid­er­ing con­sti­tu­tion­al deci­sions, these three have asked more than their share of stu­pid and irrel­e­vant ques­tions. In doing so, it’s no prob­lem at all guess­ing to which polit­i­cal par­ty their alle­giance attach­es. Their votes and writ­ten deci­sions are based unques­tion­ably on the social­ist polices of the DCP. Ketan­ji Brown Jack­son, unable or unwill­ing to define what a“women” is, in her con­fir­ma­tion hear­ings, and read­ing some of her oppo­si­tion opin­ions, clear­ly show she is the liv­ing exam­ple of what is the stu­pid­est serv­ing Jus­tice in a long time.

One would expect a Supreme Court can­di­date should at least know the “norms” for what defines gen­ders, not from the polit­i­cal per­spec­tive but in real­i­ty. Most Amer­i­cans under­stand com­mon sense but dis­sim­u­la­tion of “norms,” like pars­ing words to change an answer, shows she is lack­ing hon­esty and rais­es the ques­tion, how could any­one trust her opin­ions about any­thing like, what is “Due Process for exam­ple?”  How does she define it? How would she apply it? Does the Con­sti­tu­tion even count for her or is it a doc­u­ment made redun­dant by pop­u­lar demand of the loud­est scream­ers because it does­n’t meet their norms?  How should we define norms out­side what the Con­sti­tu­tion has already giv­en us?  “Norms” do not define a process for appeas­ing the feel good ideas of real­ly stu­pid peo­ple, includ­ing jurists and on that basis, they should nev­er become prece­dents like they have on the abor­tion issue.

Norms are the legal process set forth in the Con­sti­tu­tion that points the way to equal jus­tice and due process. Apart from redefin­ing the “norms” the Con­sti­tu­tion reveals to us by sub­sti­tut­ing their own def­i­n­i­tions, one oth­er long con­sult­ed doc­u­ment stands in their way, Web­sters Dic­tio­nary. To have a grasp on the lan­guage the Amer­i­can Con­sti­tu­tion is writ­ten in, the defin­i­tive words are avail­able in any Eng­lish dic­tio­nary, Web­sters or oth­er­wise. Does the DCP intend to do away with that book as well? Well, yes they tried a few years ago by intro­duc­ing their own dic­tio­nary until that idea got laughed out of the Con­gress. They keep try­ing! The new Norms today are the old norms of long ago and are what Trump is uti­liz­ing to Make Amer­i­ca Great Again and they are not uncon­sti­tu­tion­al.

Remem­ber, free­dom is the goal, the Con­sti­tu­tion is the way. Now, let’s pro­tect them Norms! (03Jul25)