Share This Article with a Friend!

Trump’s New York Values: Contempt For The Constitution

This is the third in my series of four articles on Donald Trump's "New York values."

Senator Ted Cruz is taking a lot of heat from the establishment media and opponent Donald Trump for his attack on Trump’s “New York values.” Trump’s comeback invoking 9/11 was good politics, but it didn’t really rebut the essential point at the heart of Cruz’s attack. And that is, “Is Donald Trump a conservative and does he share the values of the conservative movement?” 

In the third of my four-part series on Donald Trump’s New York values the answer is again “NO,” especially if you are a limited government constitutional conservative concerned about the steady erosion of the constitutional limits on government, and especially concerned about the heavy-handed use of executive power Donald Trumpin which Barack Obama has so regularly indulged.  

Just as Donald Trump often appears unfamiliar with the Bible and the principles of Biblical living, so he often appears to be unfamiliar, even contemptuous of Constitutional principles and the idea that the Constitution is the law that governs government. 

Indeed, many of Trump’s big applause lines such as, "We're going to get Apple to build their damn computers and things in this country instead of in other countries," could only be accomplished by extra-constitutional means, such as coercive taxes and regulations that no president could properly accomplish on his own authority. 

And this is particularly true of Donald Trump’s blunderbuss tough-on-terror rants. 

Trump’s shoot-from-the-lip comments on fighting terrorism are, as Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, understandably appealing to voters exasperated by a political class that seems more indulgent of Islamist charlatans than concerned about American security, but from my perspective they almost always seem to end-up in a very alarming place for constitutionalists. 

Take for example Trump’s seeming endorsement of the idea of a “Muslim registry.”* 

All of us who have studied the problem of Muslim terrorism recognize that while not all Muslims are jihadis, all jihadis are Muslims – and Islam as it is practiced by millions of Muslims around the globe is not so much a religion as it is a totalitarian political movement dedicated to obtaining absolute power for its unelected leaders. 

But separating those whose religious practices or political views threaten constitutional liberty from those whose religious practices or political views are simply out of favor with the government is what the First Amendment, our anti-terrorism and subversion laws and the Constitution’s statement of what is required to convict a person of treason are all about. 

The Immigration Act of 1952 set the precedent of Congress in its legislative capacity barring communists from America and creating a process to revoke the citizenship of subversive aliens who had naturalized.  

But the President on his own authority cannot arbitrarily decide who is a threat and who is to be under government surveillance; the government must follow the Constitution to determine if there is cause to believe a person is a threat, build a case and prosecute or better yet, interdict the threat. 

And we don’t have to look back to the pre-revolutionary experiences of America’s Founders to understand the dangers of Trump’s anti-constitutional approach to domestic security and anti-terrorism. 

Back in 2010 the Obama Department of Homeland Security incensed pro-life conservatives and believers in limited government by issuing a report identifying anti-abortion groups, “fundamentalists,” and those “suspicious of centralized federal authority” as potential sources of terrorism. 

Two years later it doubled down and issued another report that attributed the greatest share of violence over the last 40 years to “single issue” organizations, mentioning “anti-abortion” groups as the first of only four examples: “anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro.” 

As Ben Johnson writing for put it, this account of religious terrorists – a category broad enough to include Gary North with Osama bin Laden – identified as possible terrorists aligned with the “extreme right-wing” as “nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation), anti-global, suspicious of centralized federal authority, reverent of individual liberty, and believe in conspiracy theories that involve grave threat to national sovereignty and/or personal liberty.” 

In other words, a terrorist could be anyone who might exercise their First Amendment right to oppose the Trans Pacific Partnership, Obama’s open borders policies, and Donald Trump’s religious registry. 

The Constitution isn’t a smorgasbord from which Presidents can pick and choose a few dishes that are convenient to their political taste –it is the law that governs government and the fundamental underpinning of constitutional conservatism.  

One of the primary reasons I endorsed Ted Cruz is that he is a constitutional conservative who has spent the past several decades defending constitutional liberty. Ted Cruz has a consistent record of defending the individual against the power of the state, and unlike Donald Trump he holds the Constitution in such reverence that he does not make violating it into a cheap applause line in a speech. 

See the other articles in the series

1. Trump’s New York Values: Appoint Pro-Partial-Birth Abortion Judges, Like His Sister

2. Trump’s New York Values: The Poster Boy For Debasing American Culture

*Trump’s statements have seesawed from agreeing with a reporter on the idea of a Muslim database or registry to saying at a rally in Birmingham, Alabama, “I do want databases for those people coming in” which would seem to indicate limiting the database to new Muslim arrivals and then more generally, “I want surveillance of these people [Muslims]. I want surveillance if we have to and I don’t care."

Share this

Contempt for the

Contempt for the Constitution? He could not possibly be worse than, or even equal to, the Obamananation in that category.

Cruz is great but...

Cruz is a great conservative candidate, but we need a Doctor Death to counter and countermand the enormous destruction Obama has brought down on the country. Trump is "outsized" and we need an outsized man, a no nonsense take no prisoners man, to get us on track again. Cruz might be the smartest guy in the room, and I believe he is, smarter than the next ten, but it just might NOT be "smart" that we need. We need a colossus to come in and smash down all the treason with a really big sledge hammer and we need it on day one. This person can take no prisoners and show no mercy. Illegals must go. The border must close. No muslims till we figure out who is who. And it all has to happen in 90 days from inauguration. We are breaking apart. We need a radical conservative Doctor Death to get us right again, no Marquis of Queensbury type need apply.


The "D" is like most of us in this country, he is pissed at the poor quality of character our political system has produced and the corruption that has filled in because of the vacuum...Americans are not allowed to demonstrate their own representation and make the necessary changes to correct the maintenance and repair we should have been making all along..We had a ban on communism and now we do not, we allow gov unions and they are illegal, we have a weak kneed congress who has abandoned it principles and given away their power to represent our rights and freedoms.....PO'd? You bet your sweet bippy we are and so far the "D" is speaking our language.....If he can prove to us he can carry his water in this fight to regain the rule of law under the US COnstitution and secure the borders and gain control of our domestic and foreign policy, he like Reagan will be a historical presence of monumental proportion......