Donald Trump the Megathread part II

In even more fairness, it's still a good response to the Maga-head who claims to obey the US constitution as originally written. The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 isn't part of the US Constituion as origionally written, so if we take the MAGA-head at his word he would disregard it.

Which makes sense: the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights also points out that "a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles, and a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, industry, and frugality are absolutely necessary to preserve the blessings of liberty, and keep a government free: The people ought therefore to pay particular attention to these points in the choice of officers and representatives". This is clearly not a document that a Trump supporter will embrace.

Plus, given what I gather is your own situation, I wouldn't be drawing too much attention to the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights since, as well as affirming that the people have a right to bear arms, it also affirms that since standing armies "are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up". 😉

Well, there's nothing magic (in this context) about the year 1776. The US constitution was approved by the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and came into force in 1789 when enough states had ratified it. Somebody who says that he only obeys the US constitution as orginally written is not claiming any status for instruments that precede the US Constitution. Logically, since they are not "the US Constitution as originally written", the implication of his claim is that he doesn't obey them.

If we ignore logic, and try to imply an acceptance of preceding instruments, the obvious candidate is not the Constitution of Pennsylvania, or the constitution of any other-arbitrarily selected state, but the Articles of Confederation, which regulated the powers and functions of the US government institutions. and the rights and responsiblities of the States, before 1789.

Had the federal government in the absence of the Bill of Rights attempted to limit the state militias, the US would likely have had its first constitutional crisis right out the door… at a time that the States had almost all the guns!

Not so sure about this. The Articles of Confederation required each state to "always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred" and to "provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage". So presumably there would have been a basis there for the feds to take steps if a state failed to maintain a militia or (more likely) if the militia wasn't properly regulated, properly disciplined (which in this context I think includes properly trained) or properly equipped and supplied.

And there's more! Apart from the militias, the states were not to keep up any body of forces, except "such number only as, in the judgment of the united states, in congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defence of such state". The Articles go on to say that states must not engage in war without the authority of Congress, and must not maintain a navy. There are limited exceptions for necessary self-defence operations in cases of urgency. They also say that officers under the rank of colonel are to be appointed by state legislatures, the implication being, I think, that the apointment of more senior officers was to be controlled by the feds.

In other words, there's a lot in the Articles about state militias, and about what the states must do, may do or may not do with regard to militias, and with regard to defence in general. And therefore there was an abundant architecture of legal provisions that the US authorities could invoke to justify attempts to control, limit, direct, etc what the states were or weren't doing in regard to these matters.

In the fact sheet published today by the US, it is stated; “As part of President Trump’s strategy to establish balanced trade, the European Union will pay the United States a tariff rate of 15cp, including on autos and auto parts, pharmaceuticals, and semiconductors.

The sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum, and copper will remain unchanged, with the EU continuing to pay 50pc."

Eh, no.