Will you still support Justin as an Independent?

[Swordsmyth]

...There was noreason to interpret the Privileges or Immunities Clause as putting the Court to the extreme choice of interpreting the “privileges and immunities” of federal citizenship to mean either all thoserights listed in Corfield, or almost no rights at all. 16 Wall., at 76. The record is scant that the public understood the Clause to make the Federal Government “a perpetual censor upon all legislation of the States” as the Slaughter-House majority feared. Id., at 78. For one thing, Corfield listed the “elective franchise” as one of the privileges and immunities of “citizens of the several states,” 6 F. Cas., at 552, yet Congress and the States still found it necessary to adopt the Fifteenth Amendment—which protects “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote”—two years after the Fourteenth Amendment’s passage. If the Privileges or Immunities Clause were understood to protect every conceivable civil right from state abridgment, the Fifteenth Amendment would have been redundant.

The better view, in light of the States and Federal Government’s shared history of recognizing certain inalienable rights in their citizens, is that the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship overlap. This is not to say that the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship are the same. At the time of the Fourteenth Amendment’s ratification, States performed many more functions than the Federal Government, and it is unlikely that, simply by referring to “privileges or immunities,” the Framers of §1 meant to transfer every right mentioned in Corfield to congressional oversight. As discussed, “privileges” and “immunities” were understood only as synonyms for “rights.” See supra, at 9–11. It was their attachment to a particular group that gave them content, and the text and history recounted here indicate that the rights of United States citizens were not perfectly identical to the rights of citizens “in the several States.” Justice Swayne, one of the dissenters in Slaughter-House, made the point clear:

“The citizen of a State has the same fundamental rights as a citizen of the United States, and also certain others, local in their character, arising from his relation to the State, and in addition, those which belong to the citizen of the United States, he being in that relation also. There may thus be a double citizenship, each having some rights peculiar to itself. It is only over those which belong to the citizen of the United States that the category here in question throws the shield of its protection.” 16 Wall., at 126 (emphasis added).

Because the privileges and immunities of American citizenship include rights enumerated in the Constitution, they overlap to at least some extent with the privileges and immunities traditionally recognized in citizens in the several States.

A separate question is whether the privileges and immunities of American citizenship include any rights besides those enumerated in the Constitution. The four dissenting Justices in Slaughter-House would have held that the Privileges or Immunities Clause protected the unenumerated right that the butchers in that case asserted. See id., at 83 (Field, J., dissenting); id., at 111 (Bradley, J., dissenting); id., at 124 (Swayne, J., dissenting). Because this case does not involve an unenumerated right, it is not necessary to resolve the question whether the Clause protects such rights, or whether the Court’s judgment in Slaughter-House was correct.

Still, it is argued that the mere possibility that the Privileges or Immunities Clause may enforce unenumerated rights against the States creates “ ‘special hazards’ ” that should prevent this Court from returning to the original meaning of the Clause.[Footnote 21] Post, at 3 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Ironically, the same objection applies to the Court’s substantive due process jurisprudence, which illustrates the risks of granting judges broad discretion to recognize individual constitutional rights in the absence of textual or historical guideposts. But I see no reason to assume that such hazards apply to the Privileges or Immunities Clause. The mere fact that the Clause does not expressly list the rights it protects does not render it incapable of principled judicial application. The Constitution contains many provisions that require an examination of more than just constitutional text to determine whether a particular act is within Congress’ power or is otherwise prohibited. See, e.g., Art. I, §8, cl. 18 (Necessary and Proper Clause); Amdt. 8 (Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause). When the inquiry focuses on what the ratifying era understood the Privileges or Immunities Clause to mean, interpreting it should be no more “hazardous” than interpreting these other constitutional provisions by using the same approach. To be sure, interpreting the Privileges or Immunities Clause may produce hard questions. But they will have the advantage of being questions the Constitution asks us to answer. I believe those questions are more worthy of this Court’s attention—and far more likely to yield discernable answers—than the substantive due process questions the Court has for years created on its own, with neither textual nor historical support.

Finding these impediments to returning to the original meaning overstated, I reject Slaughter-House insofar as it precludes any overlap between the privileges and immunities of state and federal citizenship...

...
In my view, the record makes plain that the Framers of the Privileges or Immunities Clause and the ratifying-era public understood—just as the Framers of the Second Amendment did—that the right to keep and bear arms was essential to the preservation of liberty. The record makes equally plain that they deemed this right necessary to include in the minimum baseline of federal rights that the Privileges or Immunities Clause established in the wake of the War over slavery. There is nothing about Cruikshank’s contrary holding that warrants its retention.

*  *  *

I agree with the Court that the Second Amendment is fully applicable to the States. I do so because the right to keep and bear arms is guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment as a privilege of American citizenship.

[PAF]

As a matter of Natural Law no government may violate the rights of its citizens, anything that any level of government may violate is by definition not a right.
Whatever the consensus was at any point in the past doesn't matter, My rights come from GOD and no human government may violate them, any state that desires to violate my rights should be overruled, expelled or allowed to secede because this nation was founded on the principle of respecting the GOD given rights of the people.

Whoa, that is profound, Swordy!

I am omitting the rest of your post concerning “Rule by 5”.

So, if a human immigrant walks across open, unused land here in America, deciding where he/she wishes to plop a corn plant into the ground in order to homestead and make good use of the land, and happens to be carrying a .45, AR or whatever in order to protect/defend him/herself, you would have no problem with that.

And if you did the same, say in Mexico, or some island over by the Philippines, you be within your Natural God given Rights.

Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

[Swordsmyth]

Whoa, that is profound, Swordy!

I am omitting the rest of your post concerning “Rule by 5”.

So, if a human immigrant walks across open, unused land here in America, deciding where he/she wishes to plop a corn plant into the ground in order to homestead and make good use of the land, and happens to be carrying a .45, AR or whatever in order to protect/defend him/herself, you would have no problem with that.

And if you did the same, say in Mexico, or some island over by the Philippines, you be within your Natural God given Rights.

Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

There is no GOD given right to enter another nation's territory in violation of its rules.

[jmdrake]

I think the poll unintentionally pigeonholes people. Viable seats when funds are limited are typically where my money goes. Votes are cheap so I wouldn't have a problem with voting for him.

From the looks of things if he runs in 2020 he'll be the best candidate. I doubt Rand is gonna challenge Trump and will continue using his foothold and platform in the Senate to advance issues as best as possible. I think, however, it will be very telling if Amash does run as an independent and snatches more votes from the GOP than the democrats. I know people here like to think that the democrats are gonna break rank and come out to support him, but in my experience the only real debate about limited government, at least on the on the voter-level (meaning: not among the leadership), happens on the right, especially these days. Most of your average democrat voters just aren't at the point of frustration that they'll leave and go 3rd party/indy. They might stop supporting democrats but that doesn't mean you just add water and they become champions for smaller government. More than likely they'll end up wandering off to whatever forgotten universe the paleoconservatives went to die. (I really thought the left's walk-away movement was gonna be big but ultimately it was kind of disappointing. That's why I argue that pandering to the left is a bit dumb. Risk vs. gain just doesn't justify it.)

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

[PAF]

There is no GOD given right to enter another nation's territory in violation of its rules.

Like I said: Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

Got it.

GodComplexShill

[Swordsmyth]

Like I said: Or does a border, or strangers with guns, cancel effective immediately those “God given rights”?

Got it.

GodComplexShill

You can't cancel something that never existed.

Does a fence, a door lock, or a gun cancel a "GOD given right" of a stranger to enter your home?

[PAF]

You can't cancel something that never existed.

Does a fence, a door lock, or a gun cancel a "GOD given right" of a stranger to enter your home?

Ok, I get it. You still don’t want to show me your private property deed, which is a topic that you have avoided like the .GOV plague.

[Swordsmyth]

Ok, I get it. You still don’t want to show me your private property deed, which is a topic that you have avoided like the .GOV plague.

I showed you our territorial deed, territory is a different level of ownership.

[shakey1]

First time in my life skipping an election.

Good call.

[Zippyjuan]

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

He said he does not rule it out- though it is getting late to start fundraising for a run if he does intend to. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-amas...ategic-1447916

Amash appeared Sunday on CNN's State of the Union, where host Jake Tapper asked him directly if he had any intention of running for the nation's highest office, whether it be as an independent candidate or as a nominee for a third party like the Libertarians.

"I still wouldn't rule anything like that out," responded the 39-year-old congressman. "I believe I have to use my skills, my public influence, where it serves the country best, and I believe I have to defend the Constitution in whichever way works best. And if that means doing something else then I do that. But I feel confident about running in my district. I feel a close tie to my community. I care a lot about my community; I want to represent them in Congress."

[RonZeplin]

When bills have been passed to violate it then unless you can get a judge to overturn them you must pass bills to remove the violating bills.

But you are so much smarter to let the bills that violate it stand.

You're flat out wrong. Administrators have no obligation to enforce bad "law" aka unconstitutional legislation. There are three branches of gov for a reason, the judicial branch does not have the final say, the people who enforce DO, the executive branch.

You're just trying to make excuses for your scofflaw false god, the chief executive of the USA, Donnell of NYC.

Impeach, remove, lock 'em up!

[Swordsmyth]

You're flat out wrong. Administrators have no obligation to enforce bad "law" aka unconstitutional legislation. There are three branches of gov for a reason, the judicial branch does not have the final say, the people who enforce DO, the executive branch.

You're just trying to make excuses for your scofflaw false god, the chief executive of the USA, Donnell of NYC.

Impeach, remove, lock 'em up!

That's all well and good if you can get administrators that agree but since that doesn't usually happen then it is much better to pass laws telling them to stop violating rights as much as possible.

And Trump has to walk a tight-rope to avoid being impeached for "breaking the law" by a hostile Congress if he is going to stay in office and do some good.

You keep proving that you really want President Pelosi.

[familydog]

That is not correct:

1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

What if all the states start violating your rights?

This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit.

I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.

What good is it to have the BoR designating fundamental GOD granted rights if any level of government is allowed to violate them?

You are taking issue with the founders. As I stated previously, there would be no United States if the framers of the Constitution insisted upon incorporation. There just wasn't support for that. What you champion is the elimination of federalism in favor of a centralized government. It is a one-size-fits-all argument that betrays the orginal understanding of how our system ought to operate.

As a matter of Natural Law no government may violate the rights of its citizens, anything that any level of government may violate is by definition not a right.
Whatever the consensus was at any point in the past doesn't matter, My rights come from GOD and no human government may violate them, any state that desires to violate my rights should be overruled, expelled or allowed to secede because this nation was founded on the principle of respecting the GOD given rights of the people.

You would be in line more with the French Revolution than you ever would be in the American Revolution. The French wanted to eliminate the past. As do Marxists. History needs to be erased in order to shape the future. I disagree. We need our past. Our traditions and heritage are crucial to a functioning and peaceful society. If we erase our history, what do we have left? If we acknowledge our history and fail to adhere to it, then we are a slave to totalitarianism at the whim of the mob.

[EBounding]

I don't see Justin running for POTUS in 2020. I see him running for his current seat as an independent. There is precedent for an incumbent congressman or senator running as an independent and winning. In a 3-way race if Justin was in a close 2nd behind the republican, many democrats would be tempted to throw their weight behind him just to shore up a vote for impeachment.

That's what I think too. I hope he doesn't run in 2020. Actually winning re-election as an independent would give more credibility to a future 3rd party presidential run.

His biggest hurdle is that Michigan is a straight ticket state. I think he has a decent chance though if both parties nominate lousy candidates.

[cruzrulez]

No I will not support him as an independent. He's aligned tacitly, although not outright with bill kristol. Maybe if he disavowed bill kristol and also was as hard on the obama administration for the fisa abuse as he dogpiled on trump I could see him more or less as ideologically consistent - but he's not and isn't.

[revgen]

I won't support him financially if he's running for a congressional seat. I'll be throwing money away. National elections are impossible to win for independents and 3rd parties. If he's running for a local or state office, I'll think about it. It's the state election laws that favor GOP and Dems. Only state reps can change them.

[EBounding]

I won't support him financially if he's running for a congressional seat. I'll be throwing money away. National elections are impossible to win for independents and 3rd parties. If he's running for a local or state office, I'll think about it. It's the state election laws that favor GOP and Dems. Only state reps can change them.

The state legislature did eliminate straight ticket voting, but then voters approved a proposal to bring it back.

[shakey1]

Not sure... could be too soon to tell just what direction he’s gonna take. RP gave him a pretty strong endorsement when he was just getting started, but things change.

[Swordsmyth]

1) This is not a rebuttal on the merits of my argument. The courts did not apply the Bill of Rights to the states until the 1920s. 1925 with the case Gitlow v. New York, specifically. The courts magically found a new interpretation and rejected over a century of legal jurisprudence. This is a fact. But even then, it wasn't until the 1950s that the courts took this idea and ran with it. 2) Regarding Justice Thomas, he is incorrect. The 1873 Slaughterhouses Cases specifically state that the Privileges or Immunities Clause cannot be used in the idea of incorporation. Justice Thomas is interpreting the clause radically different than the framers of the 14th Amendment had imagined. 3) The Due Process clause was intended as a procedural measure. Currently, the courts apply substantive due process instead. The difference is important and striking. 4) Justice Thomas is not an originalist. He is arguably a textualist. An originalist view of the 14th Amendment would argue the Amendment was illegally ratified and thus void. He would also argue that the Constitution does not apply the Bill of Rights to the states.

Thomas lays out an excellent case that the 14thA absolutely imposed the BoR on the states and that people said it would when it was passed, see the other posts I mad with longer pieces of his opinion.

This is an unlikely scenario. When have all 50 states agreed on anything? If you study the founding, you will see that the north and south were radically different culturally and philosophically. Thus, the only way to establish a country was a voluntary union between the 13 individual and sovereign states. Even then, the Constitution was barely ratified. The system was set up with disagreements between the states in mind. There are now 50 states to choose from. Presumably one of them would be a fit.

All 50 states agree on many things that violate your rights.

I would also like to add that one man's rights are another man's shackles.

That's just plain wrong.

You are taking issue with the founders. As I stated previously, there would be no United States if the framers of the Constitution insisted upon incorporation. There just wasn't support for that. What you champion is the elimination of federalism in favor of a centralized government. It is a one-size-fits-all argument that betrays the orginal understanding of how our system ought to operate.

The founders also still had slaves, are you going to argue that we should still allow that?
Making the states recognize some basic human rights isn't destroying federalism, all the other restrictions on the Federal government still apply and most powers are reserved to the states.

You would be in line more with the French Revolution than you ever would be in the American Revolution. The French wanted to eliminate the past. As do Marxists. History needs to be erased in order to shape the future. I disagree. We need our past. Our traditions and heritage are crucial to a functioning and peaceful society. If we erase our history, what do we have left? If we acknowledge our history and fail to adhere to it, then we are a slave to totalitarianism at the whim of the mob.

You would be more in line with the French Revolution because it was just about who got to rule instead of fundamental GOD given rights.

It is ridiculous that you are putting state governments above GOD given individual rights, if any state and its people are insistent on violating rights then they should be allowed to leave the union or expelled from it.

[revgen]

The state legislature did eliminate straight ticket voting, but then voters approved a proposal to bring it back.

I didn't know that. Either the voters were fooled by propaganda or the votes were rigged. Or both.

[familydog]

Thomas lays out an excellent case that the 14thA absolutely imposed the BoR on the states and that people said it would when it was passed, see the other posts I mad with longer pieces of his opinion.

You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times.

All 50 states agree on many things that violate your rights.

Such as?

That's just plain wrong.

One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.

The founders also still had slaves, are you going to argue that we should still allow that?

I'm beginning to think that you have no interest in genuine dialogue and debate.

Making the states recognize some basic human rights isn't destroying federalism, all the other restrictions on the Federal government still apply and most powers are reserved to the states.

You must be unaware of what federalism is then.

You would be more in line with the French Revolution because it was just about who got to rule instead of fundamental GOD given rights.

With all due respect, you have no idea what the French Revolution was about.

It is ridiculous that you are putting state governments above GOD given individual rights, if any state and its people are insistent on violating rights then they should be allowed to leave the union or expelled from it.

I'm abiding by the Constitution and the American tradition. That's all.

[Swordsmyth]

You are correct that Thomas lays out a case, but he is wrong. He is not an originalist. He is in favor of a living constitution that changes with the times.

He is absolutely right and he lays out an originalist case.

Such as?

Most of their laws.
Just one obvious example is that all 50 states require a Driver's License to drive a car.

One man's human right to healthcare is another man's burden to provide it.

There is no human right to healthcare, I'm beginning to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'm beginning to think that you have no interest in genuine dialogue and debate.

I'd say the same for you, you tried to claim that we should do things one way because the founders did it that way as opposed to whether or not it is the right thing but now you want to run away because I demonstrated how absurd that is.

You must be unaware of what federalism is then.

No, that would be you.

With all due respect, you have no idea what the French Revolution was about.

I most certainly understand it better than you and you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was about either.

I'm abiding by the Constitution and the American tradition. That's all.

No, but even if your interpretation was correct you are arguing against changing it to be better too.

[familydog]

He is absolutely right and he lays out an originalist case.

You do not know what originalism is.

Most of their laws.
Just one obvious example is that all 50 states require a Driver's License to drive a car.

Most of their laws is not an answer.

Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.

There is no human right to healthcare, I'm beginning to understand that you have no idea what you are talking about.

According to whom?

I'd say the same for you, you tried to claim that we should do things one way because the founders did it that way as opposed to whether or not it is the right thing but now you want to run away because I demonstrated how absurd that is.

Now I know you are not serious about having a genuine dialogue. I don't have time to listen to an SJW talk about how the founders were terrible racists and therefore they should be ignored. I'll take my exist after this post.

No, that would be you.

Your rhetorical jujitsu is astounding.

I most certainly understand it better than you and you have absolutely no idea what the American Revolution was about either.

By stating that the French Revolution was about who got to rule as opposed to about liberty and equality, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject. The point is that the French and the Americans had polar opposite definitions of liberty and equality. You must not be aware of this.

No, but even if your interpretation was correct you are arguing against changing it to be better too.

I'm arguing against unconstitutional actions be the general government. Its really that simple.

[Swordsmyth]

You do not know what originalism is.

LOL

Most of their laws is not an answer.

Yes it is.

Licensing in and of itself is not a violation of your liberties unless you are an anarchist. I assume that you are not.

I am a well known non-anarchist but even I know having to get permission is a violation of my rights, if someone causes enough damage you could put them under a court order barring them from driving, you don't make everyone jump through government hoops to exercise the right to travel.

According to whom?

According to anyone who isn't a liberal lunatic, you have no right to the property or services of others.

Now I know you are not serious about having a genuine dialogue. I don't have time to listen to an SJW talk about how the founders were terrible racists and therefore they should be ignored. I'll take my exist after this post.

I didn't say they were evil racists and therefore should be ignored, I said that they were not perfect and we are not bound by their flaws and errors.
Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Your rhetorical jujitsu is astounding.

It's a match for yours.

By stating that the French Revolution was about who got to rule as opposed to about liberty and equality, you have demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject.

Keep proving your ignorance, the French Revolution CLAIMED to be about liberty and equality but it was not about either in the least, it was about who got to rule and the winners proceeded to violate everyone else's rights in a legendary manner.

The point is that the French and the Americans had polar opposite definitions of liberty and equality. You must not be aware of this.

The French were liars and hypocrites, The Americans actually believed in GOD given individual rights.
You believe in state governments.

I'm arguing against unconstitutional actions be the general government. Its really that simple.

They aren't unconstitutional because the Constitution has been amended and even if it hadn't you are arguing against amending it to preserve the individual's rights against state governments.

[jmdrake]

He said he does not rule it out- though it is getting late to start fundraising for a run if he does intend to. https://www.newsweek.com/justin-amas...ategic-1447916

Yeah...and Trump didn't rule out bombing Iran over a downed drone....but he ultimately didn't do it. There's no reason for him to take that option off the table at this point.

[TheCount]

You do not know what originalism is.

Swordsmyth thinks that originalism permits nationalization of the internet under the Post Office.

[loveshiscountry]

With all due respect, so far the 15 bootlickers of big government in this poll

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.

[UWDude]

With all due respect, so far the 14 boot lickers of big government in this poll are:
AngryCanadian, bubbleboy, cruzrulez, euphemia, fcreature, floridave, kahless, Mach, mrsat_98, spudea, Stratovarious, susano, Swordsmyth, UWDude

Because Amash votes extremely pro liberty doesn't matter. He went after Trump and by golly no one goes after our guy. Why don't everyone of you go back to England and get in a circle jerk with King George. And then die in your sleep. Amen.

Id choose a democrat that was against impeaching Trump over the collusion hoax before id ever support Amash.

And saying nothing of the attempted framing of the president over a hoax, not to mention the wedge being driven between Russia and America by the criminal hoax, by Amash, means he is not pro liberty at all, he is just "with all due respect" a calculating lawyer sleazebag, and dumb one at that, since it is clear he severely miscalculated, (not to mention it is clear he thinks the meuller report was worth reading).

"golly"

[Ender]

Id choose a democrat that was against impeaching Trump over the collusion hoax before id ever support Amash.

And saying nothing of the attempted framing of the president over a hoax, not to mention the wedge being driven between Russia and America by the criminal hoax, by Amash, means he is not pro liberty at all, he is just "with all due respect" a calculating lawyer sleazebag, and dumb one at that, since it is clear he severely miscalculated, (not to mention it is clear he thinks the meuller report was worth reading).

"golly"

Amash never believed the Russian hoax. His POV on impeachment came from possible obstruction from Trump in the investigation process. These kinds of possible actions were also what got Clinton impeached as well as Nixon.

But of course, don't read the report & just keep spouting stuff that has nothing to do with Amash's actions.

[UWDude]

Amash never believed the Russian hoax. His POV on impeachment came from possible obstruction from Trump in the investigation process. These kinds of possible actions were also what got Clinton impeached as well as Nixon.

But of course, don't read the report & just keep spouting stuff that has nothing to do with Amash's actions.

Sure he didn't believe it, but he believed in it enough to think the Meuller report was worth a damn. He believed in it enough to never once condemn it for the frame job witch hunt it was. He believed in it enough to claim there were grounds for impeachment based on the flimsiest of excuses, flimsier than a fart on a sailboat.