Leopards and Spots

Assuming that the article isn't quoting out of context (an unfortunate probability) then Trump has just managed to state out loud exactly why I'm not a fan. Everything he's said on the campaign trail and now has indicated that he doesn't really have any hard and fast convictions of his own. He is a populist who doesn't really care about the constitution.
Him not being able to get his way, despite the fact that much of his plan of action is either beneficial, or at least not terrible, is a Good Thing. I know that some conservatives are frustrated by the inability to achieve much, but we have to remember a few things:

The Constitution is not working as it should, but it is still performing its job to some degree. The executive branch has vastly more power than it did during the early days of the Republic, and the fact that it can still find itself stymied, that there are any checks at all remaining on it, is a good thing. We should not have to rely upon the benevolence of a single man, no matter how that man is picked. In addition, Trump's values have proven.. flexible enough that I'm not terribly sorry to see his power limited. In fact, I'm fairly happy about it. I'm not happy that we have yet to repeal Obamacare. I am happy that a determined executive can't just do what he wants.

Polarization of Foreign Policy?

From CBS:

Former White House senior adviser Dan Pfeiffer, who just left his job at the White House Friday, told "CBS This Morning" co-host Charlie Rose that the country is "at a very dangerous point in our polarization of foreign policy."
Pfeiffer thinks the letter is an attempt to undercut President Obama's authority.

That's cute. They think that the Senate doesn't have the final say on foreign policy. The president can sign treaties, but only the Senate can ratify them, and until the Senate ratifies a treaty, it has no force of law.

The US Constitution
Article 2 Section 2 Paragraph 2 (referencing the Executive power to make treaties)

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

"Controversial" Ammo Ban is Temporarily shelved!

From FOX News:

ATF shelves controversial bullet ban proposal

I'd just started the article when suddently:

The agency said in a statement on Tuesday it would not seek to issue the final guidelines "at this time." The proposal pertained to M855 "green tip" ammunition, used in the AR-15 rifle, which regulators looked at banning because it can pierce police body armor.

In addition to M855, every other 5.56 NATO cartridge in existence will go right through normal police body army, which is generally rated Type II or IIIA. Type IIIA armor is only rated for up to .44 magnum which, at its best is over 1000fps slower than 5.56 NATO out of an 8 inch barrel. That extra velocity means that "soft" armor can't stop it. No rifle round is going to be stopped by anything less than a Type III hard plate, which is fully capable of stopping a lot of incoming 5.56 NATO, no matter the composition of the bullet.
In addition,  M855 doesn't even meet the current definition under the law to be considered armor piercing, due to its lack of "a jacket comprising 25% or more of the weight of the projectile" and the fact that its core is partly lead (the law requires that the core be comprised wholly of one or more hard metals, such as steel or tungsten)
This little gem near the end showed just how much research the articles author did:

The weapons would still work without the M855s but they would no longer be capable of firing body-armor piercing ammo.

M855 is no more or less capable of penetrating body armor than any other 5.56 NATO round. Type IIIA and below is effortlessly penetrated, and Type III and above just laughs at it.

The other thing of note in the article:

The ATF said it would instead wait until Americans have finished commenting on the federal regulations and evaluate their comments and suggestions before "proceeding with any framework."

The fight isn't over yet. Keep on emailing those Congresscritters and let them know just what you think.

Reducing the laws for average citizens

Note: This is a draft of a constitutional amendment. I am not a lawyer.

=========

Laws, regulations, and treaties shall be referred to as “legal material” in this document.

All legal material shall be readable and understandable to the average 10^th grader or person who is 16 years old, whichever is younger, who shall hereby be called the “student”, and that average student shall be able to read and understand all of this government's legal material after spending 7 hours total learning and/or reading the legal material.

Also, legal material shall fit on 100 (one hundred) pages or less of 8 ½ by 11 inch paper using 12 pt Times New Roman font with 1 inch margins on each side, using the measurements as established on or before the year 2010.

Laws shall come before treaties which shall come before regulations, and any legal material that occurs after the 100^th page shall not be enforced. Also, any part of any legal material that does occur after the 100^th page shall be removed from the legal material until that section is able to fit within the 100 page limit.

Legal material shall be printed in the order they were passed, with the caveat that all regulations shall be printed after treaties which shall be printed after laws regardless of when the regulation or treaty came into force. In the event that legal material is amended, that legal material shall have the effective pass date of the date of amending.

In the case whereby legal material is passed which are after the 100^th page, they shall exist for 12 (twelve) years before being purged from the record. In no case shall any legal material have effect until it is included in the 100 pages.

All external sources shall count towards the page limit, and may be republished as part of the US law regardless of who hold copyright.

The Constitution does not count toward the page limit.

There shall be no "footnotes" or "endnotes."

=========

The intent of this proposed amendment is to enable all American Citizens to understand all US laws and regulations without becoming a lawyer. In other words, is this a potential federal crime or a state crime (I can guarantee that with today's federal laws, everyone is a criminal).[1]


 I wanted this to be as simple as possible.
But I didn't want lawyers to poke holes in it. They still will. But hopefully not too many and not too much.

Sources:
[1] http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304319804576389601079728920.html

Friendly...

There is a saying: There are friendly foreign governments, but there are no friendly foreign intelligence agencies.
Most nations in the world have at least one agency devoted to espionage and/or counter-espionage. How well those twin missions executed can have a major impact on how well a nation does, and if performed right can give a nation a major advantage over other nations. Thus, any nation without an intelligence agency of some sort is at a distinct disadvantage, and is either too poor or too incompetently led to be a serious threat to any nation with a more than token military.
Thus, when other countries steal our secrets I don't get mad at those countries. I just want the various intelligence agencies here in the US to work extra hard to prevent more secrets from being stolen and for the US to retaliate against whomever stole the secrets. And when we're the ones stealing secrets from other countries I want our government to do its best to avoid any serious repercussions. After all, when it comes to intelligence gathering, even among allies, it is not a case of "want". It is a case of "need". It is immoral for a nation to not gather intelligence, engage in counter-intelligence, attempt to reprise against those who steal it's secrets, and attempt to avoid reprisal when it is caught stealing secrets.
The problems come when intelligence agencies spy upon the citizens that they're supposed to protect.

On Civil Disobedience

If your government is doing something wrong, then there is nothing wrong with engaging in public civil disobedience in protest, as long as the civil disobedience is nonviolent, does not betray a trust, and the individual accepts the consequences that goes with the violation (if you're going to violate a law, you need to be willing to take the punishment - if you're boycotting a company you need to be willing to do without any product by that company, including products and services already purchased). Note that when a person's actions endanger the lives of others they cannot be considered nonviolent. Violent protest on the other hand is immoral, because it endangers the lives of others.
There is are a few exceptions to the rule:

On the Second Amendment

The Second Amendment protects my right to keep and bear arms. The exact same arms as those wielded by the military.
When the Second Amendment was written, the usual means of fighting was to stand in lines and shoot at each other. Some talk about how dumb this was, ask why rifles weren't used, but given the technology of the time, it was the only way to conduct war.
The rifles of the time worked well as a weapon of asymmetric war, ideal for sniping, ambushes, and hit and run attacks, but it failed as a weapon of regular war. This was because the only ammunition available to anyone of the time was the lead ball. It wasn't until 1847 that the first successful real bullet was introduced. Until then, the only way for rifles to be effective was to force a lead ball slightly larger than the bore of the rifle, to engage the rifling, making it impossible to load a rifle quickly, allowing early riflemen to be easily overran and slaughtered by cavalry or advancing musketeers should they try to hold a battlefield.
The musket, on the other hand, was specifically designed as a weapon of war. Because it was a smooth-bore firearm, it could be loaded quickly (although at the expense of accuracy). This made musketeers harder to overrun, while forcing them to engage at much shorter distances.

Constitution Outdated? I don't think so!

From CBS:

Professor: Take our country back, from the Constitution

  Original article tabbed and bolded:

I've got a simple idea: Let's give up on the Constitution.

 And what makes you think that this is a good idea?

I know, it sounds radical, but it's really not. Constitutional disobedience is as American as apple pie.
For example, most of our greatest Presidents -- Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, and both Roosevelts -- had doubts about the Constitution, and many of them disobeyed it when it got in their way.

Thank you for pointing that out. You're right that many presidents often disobeyed the Constitution, and that many of them had doubts about it. Let's go over your examples, shall we?
Jefferson: An Anti-Federalist, the party originally in opposition to the Constitution - and which only agreed to the Constitution on the condition that the Bill of Rights be added.
Lincoln: A Republican, engaged in Constitutionally questionable activities to keep the United Stated, United. Article One, Section Ten of the Constitution has a list of things that the States are not allowed to do. It is the only part of the Constitution that places limits upon the powers of the individual states. Secession is not on the list of powers prohibited to the states. Its important to remember that the South seceded because of state's rights and slavery (Confederate Constitution), and Lincoln contested the issue because he didn't want the Union to break apart (which is why the Emancipation Proclamation is kind of a joke - It only applied to the seceding states, which Lincoln had absolutely no control over at the time it was written).
Woodrow Wilson, on the other hand, instituted the draft to fight WWI, and afterwards fought with the Senate to join the League of Nations, the the even less effective precursor to the absolutely corrupt and ineffective UN.
FDR takes the cake, so I'll summarize: Social Security, Medicare, the rest of the New Deal, the draft during WWII. There is a reason why, after he died, the 22nd amendment was easily passed and ratified. He stacked the Supreme Court so that they would rule in his favor. He was elected for an unprecedented four terms and gained so much power that when he died, everyone else took immediate action to ensure no one could gain that much power ever again.
In conclusion, one of the examples took care of his objections to the constitution by amending it, one of them abused his power to hold the Union together, and two of them violated the Constitution for personal power. The Constitution didn't cover everything, but it's nice to know that when abuse of power happens, it is a violation of the Constitution.

To be clear, I don't think we should give up on everything in the Constitution. The Constitution has many important and inspiring provisions, but we should obey these because they are important and inspiring, not because a bunch of people who are now long-dead favored them two centuries ago.

 Just propose amendments, like everyone else.

Unfortunately, the Constitution also contains some provisions that are not so inspiring. For example, one allows a presidential candidate who is rejected by a majority of the American people to assume office. Suppose that Barack Obama really wasn't a natural-born citizen. So what?

There is a reason for that one. If Obama isn't a natural-born citizen, he will no doubt have sympathies for his place of birth, which, if his place of birth is hostile to the US, could very well lead to the US getting walloped because of the Chief Executive's sympathies.

Constitutional obedience has a pernicious impact on our political culture. Take the recent debate about gun control. None of my friends can believe it, but I happen to be skeptical of most forms of gun control.
I understand, though, that's not everyone's view, and I'm eager to talk with people who disagree.

That's good.

But what happens when the issue gets Constitutional-ized? Then we turn the question over to lawyers, and lawyers do with it what lawyers do. So instead of talking about whether gun control makes sense in our country, we talk about what people thought of it two centuries ago.

What they thought about it two centuries ago was that it is a necessary right for us to remain a free people, and therefore required protection (at least, the Anti-Federalists thought it needed protection - Turns out, they were right) .

Worse yet, talking about gun control in terms of constitutional obligation needlessly raises the temperature of political discussion. Instead of a question on policy, about which reasonable people can disagree, it becomes a test of one's commitment to our foundational document and, so, to America itself.

It provides an extra layer of protection to an absolutely necessary right. I'll take a guarantee of a right over rationality in a discussion.

This is our country. We live in it, and we have a right to the kind of country we want. We would not allow the French or the United Nations to rule us, and neither should we allow people who died over two centuries ago and knew nothing of our country as it exists today.

They might not know anything of our country as it currently exists, but they don't rule our country so it doesn't matter. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, but in the end, its all about limiting the power of those who rule, not ruling our nation.

If we are to take back our own country, we have to start making decisions for ourselves, and stop deferring to an ancient and outdated document.

 An ancient and outdated document that protects your rights and limits the powers of government so that it can't take them away.

Biden as president?

Biden may or may not become the next president of the US if Obama is declared uneligible for the presidency. But because Biden ran on the same ticket as Obama, he may not be vice-president if Obama could not be the president.

Why I hate the UN

The UN is a hotbed of despotism, anti-semitism, cronyism, and deception.
The UN Human Rights council includes Cuba, China, many other countries where human rights are a low priority, and until recently, Libya.  This Council has recommended a boycott on American companies that do business in Israel and the areas of "Palestine" that Israel occupies.

Their officials decry our free speech, speak out against one of our candidates, and send election observers here - some of whom come from countries where Stalin's famous quote "Its not those who vote who count, but those who count the votes" is the reality.

The UN is not our friend or ally. They are not an institution which believes in human freedom. At the beginning the UN included the Soviet Union as a permanent member of the security council, with full veto power. While the US is also a permanent member of the security council, and thus enjoys that same veto power, it must be realized that whatever the UN did before the fall of the USSR had to meet the approval of the Soviet Politburo, or they would veto it. Communist China, the People's Republic of China, is also a permanent member of the UN security council. The USSR is gone, but the PRC remains. We must not allow the UN to push us around. Let us stop funding the UN and begin to use our own veto power too prevent it from doing anything harmful to our republic, just as the Soviets once did, and the Communist Chinese still do.
Why don't we take the money that we send to the UN, which fails more than it succeeds at keeping the peace (As the Tutsi can attest) and give it to our military, which actually does something useful - protecting us from those who would take our freedom. Let us stop caring what the "International Community" thinks about our candidates for higher office. Romney and Obama aren't running for President of the World. They're running for President of the US, and the freedom, safety, and prosperity (in that order) of their constituency should be all they care about.

Sources:

U.N. Official Warns: Electing Mitt Romney Means ‘Democratic Mandate for Torture’

UN Affiliate Will Monitor U.S. Elections

Texas sparks international row with election observers

Pillay: Hatred, free speech don't mix

U.N. Human Rights Council Calls for Boycott of U.S. Companies

 http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/UN-Report-Sept-2012.pdf

UNITED NATIONS HUMAN RIGHTS COUNCIL (Current Membership)

Freedom in the World 2012

My Proposed Constitutional Amendment

Some treaties are so bad, that it would be almost impossible to get out of them. So how do you get out of them (if they are ratified in the future)?

With an amendment that makes it possible to get out of any treaty no matter what, that's how.

Anyway, on to what I would like to see in an amendment to the constitution (I even made it readable, I hope).