Would A Trump Presidency Be A Threat To The Rule Of Law?...

Rational Nation USA
Purveyor of Truth

Having observed Donald J. Trump during the GOP debates, watched the endless stream of Trump media exposure, and read numerous long form journalism accounts, it is almost impossible to not arrive at the conclusion he is unfit to be president of our democratic republic. Escaping the realization Trump demonstrates many characteristics of narcissism, misogyny, xenophobia, extreme nationalism, bigotry, authoritarianism, and disregard for the rule of law is only possible if one willfully ignores that which is in plain sight, and glaringly so.

For the self proclaimed party of limited government and maximum liberty it would seem reasonable as well as rational that the GOP, especially the Tea Party folks, would refuse to support a candidate that may very well, as the following The New York Times article points out, threaten the rule of law on which this nation was founded. But it has become increasingly more obvious that the GOP and the Tea Party is by far more interested in something else, returning to the old order of things pre 1965. Trump rep[resents the strong arm strongman they believe can and will do exactly that.

WASHINGTON — Donald J. Trump’s blustery attacks on the press, complaints about the judicial system and bold claims of presidential power collectively sketch out a constitutional worldview that shows contempt for the First Amendment, the separation of powers and the rule of law, legal experts across the political spectrum say.

Even as much of the Republican political establishment lines up behind its presumptive nominee, many conservative and libertarian legal scholars warn that electing Mr. Trump is a recipe for a constitutional crisis.

“Who knows what Donald Trump with a pen and phone would do?” asked Ilya Shapiro, a lawyer with the libertarian Cato Institute.

With five months to go before Election Day, Mr. Trump has already said he would “loosen” libel laws to make it easier to sue news organizations. He has threatened to sic federal regulators on his critics. He has encouraged rough treatment of demonstrators.

His proposal to bar Muslims from entry into the country tests the Constitution’s guarantees of religious freedom, due process and equal protection.

And, in what was a tipping point for some, he attacked Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the Federal District Court in San Diego, who is overseeing two class actions against Trump University.

Mr. Trump accused the judge of bias, falsely said he was Mexican and seemed to issue a threat.

“They ought to look into Judge Curiel, because what Judge Curiel is doing is a total disgrace,” Mr. Trump said. “O.K.? But we will come back in November. Wouldn’t that be wild if I am president and come back and do a civil case?”

David Post, a retired law professor who now writes for the Volokh Conspiracy, a conservative-leaning law blog, said those comments had crossed a line.

“This is how authoritarianism starts, with a president who does not respect the judiciary,” Mr. Post said. “You can criticize the judicial system, you can criticize individual cases, you can criticize individual judges. But the president has to be clear that the law is the law and that he enforces the law. That is his constitutional obligation.”

To Trump advocates we can only say caveat emptor.

Continue reading BELOW THE FOLD

Via: Memeorandum