Commentary: The continued evisceration of our Constitution

It is now apparent that the Democrats will do anything to overturn the exercised will of the people in the 2016 election. The first evisceration took place when senior officials of the Obama administration, with Obama’s approval, tried to pull off a coup against then candidate Trump, as they were convinced Hillary would win.

The Barr and Durham investigations are in the process of bringing this coup, and all of its players, to light. If the senior officials charged are proven to be innocent, so be it; however, if proven otherwise, I hope and pray our justice system works accordingly.

The continuing evisceration of our Constitution is the Democrat impeachment of President Trump. Notice I said the Democrat impeachment, as not one Republican and a number of Democrats voted not to impeach. Nothing Nancy said about the seriousness or the criteria for having a House impeachment vote came to fruition.

The vote to impeach was cast in stone the minute President Trump was declared victorious in November 2016. Now, Queen Nancy is attempting to further subvert the Constitution by not sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate. The Democrats talked about President Trump like he was a king and tyrant. Isn’t it ironic that Nancy now demands how the Senate trial is to take place?

Based on how our founding fathers crafted the Constitution, I hope this impeachment circus has taught every American an important lesson in civics and how our government works. Bottom line— the party in power makes the rules. The Democrats control the House; therefore, the Constitution gives them the authority to determine how the rules of the impeachment game will be played.

Forget fairness, with this group of Democrats that was never an option. According to the Constitution, the House’s articles of impeachment now go to the Senate for the actual impeachment trial. It is there, based on the outcome of said trial, that the president will be declared innocent or removed from office. But, the Republicans control the Senate.

News flash, Nancy has absolutely zero say as to how that trial is conducted, and Chuck needs to negotiate with Mitch. However, that isn’t stopping either of them from eviscerating the Constitution even more.

I listened to the heart-wrenching speeches given by Democrats during the House debate. They invoked their children, grandchildren, a deceased member of the House and even God as they talked about their solemn constitutional duty. Their blindness to party loyalty caused every Democrat who voted for impeachment failure to see the obvious — their destruction of the Constitution.

There were two articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Where is the crime? If the Democrats truly believed in their case and their solemn duty of protecting the Constitution, they would have followed the Constitution as written — resolving disputes between the executive and legislative branches via the judicial branch. However, according to current news reports, the Dems are contemplating adding additional articles to the impeachment resolution. If that move fails, the Dems have already laid the groundwork for impeachment No. 2; which will again trample the Constitution and how it is supposed to function.

Politicians lie, we all know that. Sadly, the Democrats showed us just how far they would take lying to make an extremely weak and unfounded case during the impeachment debate. What frightens me most is their trampling of the Constitution while invoking its very words.

Our lone House representative voted along party lines, forgetting or not even understanding the solemn oath she took. As for our two senators, they’ve already stated their intent. I believe all three need to revisit their oath of office as they neither understand, nor don’t care about the words they mouthed. While I take no joy in saying this, we have three stooges representing our state, and none of them understand the words of the Constitution or what they mean.

A final thought. In response to Mr. Sowers’ article of Dec. 21, “Don’t Use a Shotgun to Kill Flies,” I wonder why you find it necessary to invoke Nazi Germany in your responses. It’s OK to disagree with me Mr. Sowers, that’s your right. However, do you really believe that Hitler allowed “limited freedom of speech”? Additionally, you use the term “modified capitalism.” It is important for readers to understand that modified capitalism was the basis for Hitler’s political and economic policy called the “final solution?” Is that the type of policy you support?

Frank Daniels, a retired colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve, is a resident of Dover.