Trump declares war on the Constitution
Donald Trump  is to conservatism as SpaghettiOs are to Italian food: a distant  crude and almost unrecognizable cousin. But last year  many conservatives who had trouble rationalizing a vote for  Donald Trump  settled on one decisive reason. Justices appointed by President Hillary Clinton  they said  could not be trusted to faithfully follow the Constitution.
These strict constructionists now find themselves with a president who regards the nationâs founding document as something between an irrelevance and a wad of gum stuck to his shoe. On Wednesday  he uttered statements that would have shocked conservatives had they come from Clinton or Barack Obama but were taken as inconsequential coming from  Trump .
 Trump  has held up the late Antonin Scalia as  his  model of a justice.  Scalia  disdained the idea of a âliving Constitutionâ whose meaning evolves over time. âThe only good Constitution is a dead Constitution â  he  declared.
If  Trump  had  his  way  the Constitution would be deader than the czars  though not quite in the way  Scalia  meant. When the president swore an oath to âpreserve  protect and defend the Constitution of the United States â he took it just as seriously as the debts he escaped in bankruptcy court.
 Trump  would start by amputating the First Amendment  which upholds the disgusting freedom of journalists to âwrite whatever they want to write.â This is the same president who invited violence against reporters by tweeting a video doctored to make it look like he was punching a CNN representative.
But  Trumpâs  empty threat flowed naturally from  his  past pronouncements on such matters. During the campaign   he  vowed to change libel laws to make it easier for the likes of  him  â loudmouthed  grossly dishonest public figures â to win libel suits.
 His  position is at war with one of the Supreme Courtâs most important and unassailable decisions  reached in 1964. It said the First Amendment requires that citizens be able to express their views without fear of being punished for inadvertent misstatements. If  Trump  were thinking clearly   he  would realize that existing libel law is  his  friend  because it immunizes  him  for  his  fraudulent claims about critics.
 His  three orders on foreigners traveling to the United States so obviously stemmed from  his  campaign vow to ban all Muslims that administration lawyers implored judges to forget everything  he  had previously said. The judges didnât. The first two travel orders were ruled unconstitutional  and the latest is being challenged.
 He  and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have spurned the January Justice Department report that found Chicago police guilty of âpattern or practice of unconstitutional use of forceâ â including killing people without a good reason. Barack Obamaâs Justice Department wanted to prevent these abuses through a consent decree. Sessions has no interest in fixing or even noticing such problems.
 He  flaunted  his  indifference in a memo rejecting corrective action: âIt is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies.â Actually  when they violate the federal Constitution  it is.
[TGT] is to conservatism as SpaghettiOs are to Italian food: a distant  crude and almost unrecognizable cousin. But last year  many conservatives who had trouble rationalizing a vote for   [TGT] settled on one decisive reason. Justices appointed by President Hillary Clinton  they said  could not be trusted to faithfully follow the Constitution.
These strict constructionists now find themselves with a president who regards the nationâs founding document as something between an irrelevance and a wad of gum stuck to  [TGT]  shoe. On Wednesday   [TGT]  uttered statements that would have shocked conservatives had they come from Clinton or Barack Obama but were taken as inconsequential coming from  [TGT]  .
  [TGT] has held up the late Antonin Scalia as   [TGT]   model of a justice.  Scalia  disdained the idea of a âliving Constitutionâ whose meaning evolves over time. âThe only good Constitution is a dead Constitution â  he  declared.
If  [TGT]  [TGT]   had   [TGT]   way  the Constitution would be deader than the czars  though not quite in the way  Scalia  meant. When the president swore an oath to âpreserve  protect and defend the Constitution of the United States â he took it just as seriously as the debts he escaped in bankruptcy court.
  [TGT] would start by amputating the First Amendment  which upholds the disgusting freedom of journalists to âwrite whatever they want to write.â This is the same president who invited violence against reporters by tweeting a video doctored to make it look like he was punching a CNN representative.
But  Trumpâs  empty threat flowed naturally from  his  past pronouncements on such matters. During the campaign   he  vowed to change libel laws to make it easier for the likes of  him  â loudmouthed  grossly dishonest public figures â to win libel suits.
 His  position is at war with one of the Supreme Courtâs most important and unassailable decisions  reached in 1964. It said the First Amendment requires that citizens be able to express their views without fear of being punished for inadvertent misstatements. If  Trump  were thinking clearly   he  would realize that existing libel law is  his  friend  because it immunizes  him  for  his  fraudulent claims about critics.
 His  three orders on foreigners traveling to the United States so obviously stemmed from  his  campaign vow to ban all Muslims that administration lawyers implored judges to forget everything  he  had previously said. The judges didnât. The first two travel orders were ruled unconstitutional  and the latest is being challenged.
 He  and Attorney General Jeff Sessions have spurned the January Justice Department report that found Chicago police guilty of âpattern or practice of unconstitutional use of forceâ â including killing people without a good reason. Barack Obamaâs Justice Department wanted to prevent these abuses through a consent decree. Sessions has no interest in fixing or even noticing such problems.
 He  flaunted  his  indifference in a memo rejecting corrective action: âIt is not the responsibility of the federal government to manage non-federal law enforcement agencies.â Actually  when they violate the federal Constitution  it is.