Do you accept our Constitution as the law of our land?

Twitter: @rodgermitchell; Search #monetarysovereignty
Facebook: Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
It takes only two things to keep people in chains: The ignorance of the oppressed and the treachery of their leaders..
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

America is special.

We are special because every 4-8 years, we peacefully change our leadership.  We do not suffer coups or other forms of violent resistance.

Even when a majority votes for one candidate, but our Constitution dictates that the other candidate has won, we accept the decision.

That is why Donald Trump, and not Hillary Clinton, is our President.

Many feel this violates the spirit of a democratic government, but we respect our Constitution. We respect it even above the word of any of our gods, which is why we accept the separation of Church from State.

On specific issues, many of us may not like what it tells us, but our mutual acceptance of those words makes America special.

We are a diverse, multiethnic nation, but our Constitution gives us the strength of unity. We are strong because we are one.

We are one because of our Constitution.

Our government is divided into three branches, and one branch — the judiciary — is tasked with the responsibility to defend our Constitution. Sometimes it must stand alone and strong against the other two branches, that often feel free to ignore Constitutional restraints.

If the judiciary ever were to yield that strength to the Congress or to the Presidency, America would cease to exist as we know it.

If Congress ruled, America would be a system of feifdoms.

If the President ruled, America would be a dictatorship.

That is why it always is disturbing when a President displays contempt for the Judicial branch.

Donald Trump’s racial comments about Hispanic judge in Trump University case
By Tom Kertscher on Wednesday, June 8th, 2016, Politfact

This was the exchange about the judge between Trump and host John Dickerson on CBS’ Face the Nation. The interview was recorded on June 3, 2016.

Dickerson: Let me ask you about, what does the Mexican heritage of the judge in the Trump University case have to do with anything?

Trump: First of all, I’ve had terrible rulings, forever.

I had a judge previous to him and it would have been a very quick case. This is a case I should’ve won on summary judgment. This is a case — the plaintiff in the case was a woman.  She was so bad that under deposition it was over. I mean, she couldn’t have been the — it was a disaster.

Dickerson: But Mr. Trump, what does this have to do with his parents being from Mexico, how does that —

Trump: Excuse me, excuse me, I’m just saying. We’re getting terrible rulings. We go to the judge, we say to the judge, “Hey, you can’t let her out of the case.” He let her out of the case. We said, “Well, if you’re going to let her out of the case, she’s the plaintiff. If you’re going to let her out of the case, the case is over.” No, the case isn’t over. OK? Now —

He is a member of a club or society, very strongly pro-Mexican, which is all fine. But I say he’s got bias. I want to build a wall. I’m going to build a wall. But just so you understand, this judge has treated me very unfairly, he’s treated me in a hostile manner. And there’s something going on.

Dickerson: And you think it’s not because — you think it’s because of where his parents came from?

Trump: Look, I have a case where thousands of people have said it was a great school. They’ve written reviews where they say it’s a great school. Not a good school, like great. They gave it the highest marks.

I have thousands of these papers. It should’ve been a summary judgment case, meaning the case should’ve been dismissed.

Dickerson: Yeah, I guess I’m just still confused how — what his Mexican parents have to do with that. Let me —

Trump: Excuse me. I want to build a wall. I mean, I don’t think it’s very confusing. Has nothing to do with anything except common sense. You know, we have to stop being so politically correct in this country. And we need a little more common sense, John. And I’m not blaming. I’m proud of my heritage, we’re all proud of our heritage. But I want to build a wall.

Now, the Hispanics, many of them like what I’m saying. They’re here legally. They don’t want people coming and taking their jobs and taking their house and everything else. They don’t want that.

Trump’s position: Because he wants to build a border wall, a judge who was born in America, but whose parents came from Mexico, can’t be fair with regard to Trump University.

Get it?

(Trump University was so “great,” Trump paid a gigantic $25,000,000 penalty for the scam.)  But the real point is not that Trump is a crook, but that he repeatedly disparages the foundation of our American government — the protector of our Constitution, the judiciary — whenever he doesn’t get his way.

Trump is like the petulant child who is angry at the parents who feed, clothe, and send him to college but they won’t let him misbehave.

Chicago Tribune
Federal judge in Hawaii extends order halting Trump’s travel ban

U.S. District Judge Derrick Watson: “The entirety of (Trump’s) Executive Order runs afoul of the Establishment Clause, where ‘openly available data support a commonsense conclusion that a religious objective permeated the government’s action.”

Trump called Watson’s ruling an example of “unprecedented judicial overreach.”

And then, after Trump had lashed out at the judiciary about his Trump University scam, and his Muslim ban, apparently he wasn’t finished, when he tried for a third, unconstitutional Executive Order:

Judge cites Trump’s comment in ‘sanctuary city’ ruling
By SUDHIN THANAWALA, Associated Press
Published: April 26, 2017, 11:33 AM

In a ruling on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William Orrick quoted Trump to support his decision to block the president’s order to withhold funding from “sanctuary cities” that do not cooperate with U.S. immigration officials.

Trump called the sanctuary cities order a “weapon” against communities that disagree with his preferred immigration policy, Orrick said. The judge also cited a February interview in which he said the president threatened to cut off funding to California, saying the state “in many ways is out of control.”

The first comment was evidence that the administration intended the executive order to apply broadly to all sorts of federal funding, and not a relatively small pot of grant money as the Department of Justice had argued, the judge said.

The second statement showed the two California governments that sued to block the order — San Francisco and Santa Clara County — had good reason to believe they would be targeted, Orrick said.

Trump reacted to the decision on Twitter on Wednesday morning, calling the decision “ridiculous” and saying he would take his fight to the highest court, tweeting: “See you in the Supreme Court.”

Trump tweeted: “First the Ninth Circuit rules against the ban & now it hits again on sanctuary cities-both ridiculous rulings.” Trump tweeted that the 9th circuit has “a terrible record of being overturned (close to 80 percent).” He said, “They used to call this ‘judge shopping!’ Messy system.” 

Among the many, many things Trump doesn’t understand is that the Supreme Court generally takes certain types of appeals — those where there is a high probability of an overturn. It doesn’t take appeals of decisions with which it agrees.

Thus all Circuit Courts experience a high percentage of overturns — 80% is near average  — and the Ninth has not been the highest.

Among Trump’s comments was this one: “(The ruling is) an “egregious overreach by a single, unelected district judge.” Does it get any worse than that? District judges, appeals judges and Supreme Court judges are appointed, not elected. Trump seemingly is ignorant of that fact.

Orrick wrote that the jurisdictions successfully showed they “are currently suffering irreparable harm” because the order violates rights granted to states by the Constitution . . . ”

Presidents are Constitutionally precluded from coercing cities, counties,  and states in that way.

Bottom line: Every time Trump doesn’t get a favorable court ruling, he stomps his feet and criticizes the judge.

This is his long-standing pattern, which demonstrates the importance of an independent judiciary.  For instance, there was this tweet with regard to Judge James Robart, “The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!” (The next day, White House spokesman Sean Spicer said Trump had “no regrets” about his criticism of judges.)

Trump’s own Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, described Trump’s criticism of the judiciary as “demoralizing and disheartening.” But Trump has “no regrets.”

He wishes to learn nothing about our Constitution and indeed has learned nothing.

Imagine the arbitrary havoc this Congress and Trump could cause without the leash held by our judges and our Constitution. 

This is why America even can survive President Donald Trump. We have a judiciary and a Constitution, and we are people who believe in both.

Rodger Malcolm Mitchell
Monetary Sovereignty

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

The single most important problems in economics involve the excessive income/wealth/power Gaps between the have-mores and the have-less.

Wide Gaps negatively affect poverty, health and longevity, education, housing, law and crime, war, leadership, ownership, bigotry, supply and demand, taxation, GDP, international relations, scientific advancement, the environment, human motivation and well-being, and virtually every other issue in economics.

Implementation of The Ten Steps To Prosperity can narrow the Gaps:

Ten Steps To Prosperity:
1. ELIMINATE FICA (Ten Reasons to Eliminate FICA )
Although the article lists 10 reasons to eliminate FICA, there are two fundamental reasons:
*FICA is the most regressive tax in American history, widening the Gap by punishing the low and middle-income groups, while leaving the rich untouched, and
*The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, neither needs nor uses FICA to support Social Security and Medicare.
2. FEDERALLY FUNDED MEDICARE — PARTS A, B & D, PLUS LONG TERM CARE — FOR EVERYONE (H.R. 676, Medicare for All )
This article addresses the questions:
*Does the economy benefit when the rich can afford better health care than can the rest of Americans?
*Aside from improved health care, what are the other economic effects of “Medicare for everyone?”
*How much would it cost taxpayers?
*Who opposes it?”
3. PROVIDE A MONTHLY ECONOMIC BONUS TO EVERY MAN, WOMAN AND CHILD IN AMERICA (similar to Social Security for All) (The JG (Jobs Guarantee) vs the GI (Guaranteed Income) vs the EB (Economic Bonus)) Or institute a reverse income tax.
This article is the fifth in a series about direct financial assistance to Americans:

Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Employer of Last Resort is a bad idea. Sunday, Jan 1 2012
MMT’s Job Guarantee (JG) — “Another crazy, rightwing, Austrian nutjob?” Thursday, Jan 12 2012
Why Modern Monetary Theory’s Jobs Guarantee is like the EU’s euro: A beloved solution to the wrong problem. Tuesday, May 29 2012
“You can’t fire me. I’m on JG” Saturday, Jun 2 2012

Economic growth should include the “bottom” 99.9%, not just the .1%, the only question being, how best to accomplish that. Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) favors giving everyone a job. Monetary Sovereignty (MS) favors giving everyone money. The five articles describe the pros and cons of each approach.
4. FREE EDUCATION (INCLUDING POST-GRAD) FOR EVERYONE Five reasons why we should eliminate school loans
Monetarily non-sovereign State and local governments, despite their limited finances, support grades K-12. That level of education may have been sufficient for a largely agrarian economy, but not for our currently more technical economy that demands greater numbers of highly educated workers.
Because state and local funding is so limited, grades K-12 receive short shrift, especially those schools whose populations come from the lowest economic groups. And college is too costly for most families.
An educated populace benefits a nation, and benefitting the nation is the purpose of the federal government, which has the unlimited ability to pay for K-16 and beyond.
5. SALARY FOR ATTENDING SCHOOL
Even were schooling to be completely free, many young people cannot attend, because they and their families cannot afford to support non-workers. In a foundering boat, everyone needs to bail, and no one can take time off for study.
If a young person’s “job” is to learn and be productive, he/she should be paid to do that job, especially since that job is one of America’s most important.
6. ELIMINATE FEDERAL TAXES ON BUSINESS
Businesses are dollar-transferring machines. They transfer dollars from customers to employees, suppliers, shareholders and the federal government (the later having no use for those dollars). Any tax on businesses reduces the amount going to employees, suppliers and shareholders, which diminishes the economy. Ultimately, all business taxes reduce your personal income.
7. INCREASE THE STANDARD INCOME TAX DEDUCTION, ANNUALLY. (Refer to this.) Federal taxes punish taxpayers and harm the economy. The federal government has no need for those punishing and harmful tax dollars. There are several ways to reduce taxes, and we should evaluate and choose the most progressive approaches.
Cutting FICA and business taxes would be a good early step, as both dramatically affect the 99%. Annual increases in the standard income tax deduction, and a reverse income tax also would provide benefits from the bottom up. Both would narrow the Gap.
8. TAX THE VERY RICH (THE “.1%) MORE, WITH HIGHER PROGRESSIVE TAX RATES ON ALL FORMS OF INCOME. (TROPHIC CASCADE)
There was a time when I argued against increasing anyone’s federal taxes. After all, the federal government has no need for tax dollars, and all taxes reduce Gross Domestic Product, thereby negatively affecting the entire economy, including the 99.9%.
But I have come to realize that narrowing the Gap requires trimming the top. It simply would not be possible to provide the 99.9% with enough benefits to narrow the Gap in any meaningful way. Bill Gates reportedly owns $70 billion. To get to that level, he must have been earning $10 billion a year. Pick any acceptable Gap (1000 to 1?), and the lowest paid American would have to receive $10 million a year. Unreasonable.
9. FEDERAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL BANKS (Click The end of private banking and How should America decide “who-gets-money”?)
Banks have created all the dollars that exist. Even dollars created at the direction of the federal government, actually come into being when banks increase the numbers in checking accounts. This gives the banks enormous financial power, and as we all know, power corrupts — especially when multiplied by a profit motive.
Although the federal government also is powerful and corrupted, it does not suffer from a profit motive, the world’s most corrupting influence.
10. INCREASE FEDERAL SPENDING ON THE MYRIAD INITIATIVES THAT BENEFIT AMERICA’S 99.9% (Federal agencies)Browse the agencies. See how many agencies benefit the lower- and middle-income/wealth/ power groups, by adding dollars to the economy and/or by actions more beneficial to the 99.9% than to the .1%.
Save this reference as your primer to current economics. Sadly, much of the material is not being taught in American schools, which is all the more reason for you to use it.

The Ten Steps will grow the economy, and narrow the income/wealth/power Gap between the rich and you.

MONETARY SOVEREIGNTY