Trump the Murder
Trump, "the Deplorable"
Pat, I am OK. You are OK.
Trump/M.A.G.A.'s
Utter Failure
With "American Exceptionalism"
The ULTRA nationalism of Trump/M.A.G.A. exemplifies the historical failure of the assertion of "American Exceptionalism."
It was never about the "American Exceptionalism" of the "Bright Shining City that was built on the hill." The United States success was all about "the hill" being the last undeveloped fertile-crescent like continent on the planet that made the heirs rich!
First off you have to separate the Americas from the United States. Verbally in the original 4,000+/- words of the United States Constitution, it uses the stand-alone term "United States" 52 times self reverentially, only twice does it include the optional descriptive prepositional phrase "of America."
The very last thing Trump/M.A.G.A. wants to do is make the multi-cultural continents of North, Central and South America great again. Trump/M.A.G.A. wants to put a wall up, to isolate the United States from the multi-cultural non-white skinned Americas.
In 1789 when the United States constitution was ratified, it was standout exceptional among the many hereditary monarchies that were then prevalent.
But since 1789 the Monroe Doctrine and a hidden fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy have corrupted any assertion of American Exceptionalism. That was and is before you even get to Trump/M.A.G.A.
In its first 10 years, the last 10 years of the 18th century the United States Constitution took root in the fertile soil of an educated and largely Christian committed religiously persecuted class of victims. The Founding Fathers and their contemporaries had selfless commitment to a concept of multiculturalism and had the SPACE to easily accommodate it.
The Monroe Doctrine, declared by President James Monroe in 1823, is a cornerstone of U.S. failed foreign policy that warned European powers against further colonization or intervention in the Western Hemisphere, establishing the Americas as a U.S. sphere of influence.
The inherent hubris of the Monroe Doctrine assumed the U.S. Constitution was the model for the future. Trump/M.A.G.A.'s Monroe Doctrine still today assumes the same thing.
In the 19th and early 20th Century the hubris of the Monroe Doctrine created the proverbial many "Banana Republic" dictators. The "Banana Republic" dictators had only the verbiage of a generic U.S. Constitution and none of the fertile soil of an educated and largely Christian committed religiously persecuted class of victims.
And given the proverbial verbiage of the U.S. Constitution alone the "Banana Republics" did not even attempt the creation of an effective Article I congress to check the Article II, unitary executive, i.e. Commander in Chief and primary law enforcement officer.
The Monroe Doctrine today with Trump/M.A.G.A.'s unjustified assertion anew with Chief Justice John Robert's "unitary executive" the United States has to RELEARN the failure of the Banana Republics. We have a president unbridled by the EFFECTIVE check of an Article I Congress[1] or the last clause of the First Amendment.
That brings us to today's REAL PROBLEM. The fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy,[2] with binding precedent attached. The fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy has corrupted too much if not all of justice since its unconstitutional originating assertion in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803).
To this day nowhere in the 4,000 +/- words of the original United States's Constitution of 1789 or the amended United States's Constitution of TODAY, is judge-made-law called for or authorized.
Thomas Jefferson was originally the most prolific and outspoken opponent of the un-Constitutional assertion of judge-made-law, but I refuse to believe he was the only one!
Thomas Jefferson's oft repeated declarations:
"It has long been my opinion, and I have never shrunk from its expression,… that the germ of dissolution of our Federal Government is in the constitution of the Federal Judiciary–an irresponsible body (for impeachment is scarcely a scare-crow), working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction[3] until all shall be usurped from the States and the government be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed." — Jefferson letter to Charles Hammond, 1821 – footnote of course added.
"(Y)you seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots." — Thomas Jefferson 28th September 1820, letter to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello
"It is not enough that honest men are appointed judges. All know the influence of interest on the mind of man, and how unconsciously his judgment is warped by that influence. To this bias add that of the esprit de corps, of their peculiar maxim and creed that 'it is the office of a good judge to enlarge his jurisdiction,' and the absence of responsibility, and how can we expect impartial decision between the General government, of which they are themselves so eminent a part, and an individual state from which they have nothing to hope or fear?" — Thomas Jefferson Autobiography, 1821.
With us, all the branches of the government are elective by the people themselves, except the judiciary, of whose science and qualifications they are not competent judges. Yet, even in that department, we call in a jury of the people to decide all controverted matters of fact, because to that investigation they are entirely competent, leaving thus as little as possible, merely the law of the case, to the decision of the judges." — Jefferson letter to A. Coray, 1823.
footnotes, underlining and bolding of course added
To this day nowhere in the 4,000 +/- words of the original United States's Constitution of 1789 or the amended United States's of TODAY, is judge-made-law called for or authorized.
Plato was the first and therefore the wisest to ever assert the bromide that only "learned men" should be the leaders of men, with his assertion of "Philosopher Kings" in Plato's Republic around 380 BC. It was some 2,160 years before the writing of the United State's Constitution in 1789.
Philosopher kings, a concept from Plato's Republic, were the ideal rulers who combine supreme wisdom, philosophical knowledge of reality, and political power. They are trained from youth, acting as altruistic guardians who guide the state with justice rather than personal gain. They are considered necessary for creating a just, stable, and truly functional society.
I would have probably given the ability to make judge-made-law to Plato, the first of the "Philosopher Kings." And in the same vein James Madison (Federalist Paper #47), Alexander Hamilton (Federalist Papers #78, #79 and #81), and maybe even Chief Justice John Marshall (Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803)).
But more wisely than that, FOR OUR SAKE, none of that made it into the hotly debated United State's Constitution in 1789 or even today's much amended United State's Constitution.
Because right after the wise man of Chief Justice John Marshall came fascist corrupt despotic Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney started the Civil War with his judge-made-law that said the black man "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect, and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit" (Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 407 (1856)) he attempted to FORCE it on the free states and new territories.
The first few, e.g., Madison, Hamilton, Marshall, in the line of succession always seemed right, but their successors are always the issue, and I think the founder's new the issue. They knew better than to give in to unrestrained, judge-made-law to anyone.
The founding father held fast to the long established Magna Carta's (1215) Chapter 39, the foundational right to the "lawful judgment of his peers". Again Thomas Jefferson:
"I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society, but the people themselves (think "Voting," "due process of law" & "juries"): and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their controul with a wholsome discretion, the remedy is, not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. this is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power." (Thomas Jefferson 9/28/1820, in writing to Mr. JARVIS, from Monticello - bolding/underlining/parentheticals added)
Now in today's justice system that still holds in local juries for others. Article III Judges today profess the concept of (adversarial) due-process and local jury of peers in highly technical disputes in the criminal and civil liability of medical, environmental, product liability and etc. issues You don't have to be a PHD to decide any issue in a grounded adversarial due process court in the developed world of today.
Additionally, the Founding Fathers thought they had incorporated the constitutional requirements of the Magna Carta's (1215) Chapter 61 with last clause of the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting… the right of the people… to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
But the Founding Fathers had never EVER considered the possibility of judge-made-law. Much, much less any law that granted anyone immunity from their United State's Constitution and the laws derived from it.
But just post Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's Civil War the fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy, saw the winner's writing on the wall, the implementation of Thomas Jefferson's declaration of independence:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
They could not let that happen they needed immunity from the 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments and the "power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[4]"
The last clause of the First Amendment had held fast, for almost 100 years, through the Civil war (1861-1865). And then TWO unforeseen UNCONSTITUTIONAL "Jim Crow"[5] judge-made-laws within 7 years:
Ø Randall v. Brigham, 74 U. S. 536 (decided April 15, 1869) sophistry in response to the criminal liability in The Civil Rights Act of 1866 passed in to law April 9, 1866 and then..
Ø Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 (decided April 8, 1872) sophistry in response to civil liability in the Civil Rights Act of 1871 passed into law April 20, 1871 are the origins of unconstitutional "immunity" in the American Justice system.
i.e., thus a judge's discretion became immune to any attempt to get "redress of grievances."
And the fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy have since been handing out "immunity" like trick or treat candy to virtually anyone they wanted. The supreme Court's[6] "judge-made-law" a.k.a. "Jim Crow"[7] sophistry[8] tells us STILL today, "We the People" sub silentio[9] traded the "King (Nobility) can do no WRONG" for the ABSOLUTELY IMMUNE actions of the "malicious or corrupt" judges,[10] the "malicious or dishonest" prosecutor[11], the "knowingly false testimony by police officers"[12], the malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid actions of "all persons (spouses) -- governmental or otherwise -- who were integral parts of the judicial process,"[13] the actions of federal, state, local, and regional legislators[14] and now PRESIDENTS[15] acting under color of law to render absolute corruption of inalienable constitutional rights.
It needs to be noted especially that TODAY'S "qualified immunity" does nothing to fix the issue, it puts the issue again before absolutely immune, malicious, corrupt, dishonest, sincerely ignorant, conscientiously stupid judicial officers.
Today we need judges that do their jobs and judge, and are willing to stand by their judgements. Judges should be able to say "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride[16]" without binding precedent attached if they TRULY believe it.[17]
I am firm believer in what I like to call Abraham Lincoln's eleventh commandment:
"You can fool some of the people all the time and all the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all the people, all the time."
Judges that constantly rule independent of Justice, will be dealt with, and at very worst not replaced with like minds . And just recently Chief Justice John Roberts and his fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy has gone beyond reason and corruption with a way toooooo little mentioned attempted precedent, over ruling the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on June 28, 2024. Thus today in the United States EVERYTHING, and I mean everything has to get past the arbitrary NEVER ENDING delay and approval of the Article III supreme[18] Court.
That is on top of Un-representative "dark money" CORRUPT Senate. In a new unrepresentative "dark money" senate without regard to party, 52 of the senators, from the 26 least populous states[19] amount to a minimum 18% of the population.
To hold a filibuster and BLOCK EVERYTHING takes 42 senators from the 21 smallest states with a minimum 11% of the population.[20]
I declare this violates the Constitutional assertion:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.
Show me where in the United States Constitution judge-made-law is called for or authorized!!!! It ain't there and it never WAS!!!!!!
Trump is a PROVEN liar, a PROVEN racist, a PROVEN fraud, a PROVEN rapist, a PROVEN murder, a PROVEN war criminal, a PROVEN kidnapper, a PROVEN insurrectionist a SIX TIME self-confessed multi-million dollar bankrupt!!!! And he truly believes he is going to get away with EVERYTHING. https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2026/02/jmlwoca.html
Yes, we CAN create a veto proof majority in both houses! https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/09/ywc.html
We the People of the United States have to humbly admit our EXCEPTIONAL human fallibility with slavery, judge-made-law, the Banana Republics/C.J. John Robert's unitary executive, the possibility of future mistakes and move forward eyes wide open, promoting the DIVERSITY, EQUITY, and INCLUSION that our country was too feebly founded on!
We the People have to again assert our constitutional last clause of the First Amendment rights[21] and declare all judicial precedents possibly informative but never ABSOLUTELY BINDING!!!!
Jude-made-law never was constitutionally authorized and never will be.
Judge-made-law is NO MORE!!!!!!
Trump the Murder
The last clause of the First Amendment makes any assertion of IMMUNITY unconstitutional.
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2026/02/last-clause-1a.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/06/sc.html
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FVfm-ushzCCTS5BtH1R7MeOvnDvh_kqv/view
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/03/the-issue-with-trump.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2023/10/american-exceptionalism-not-so-much.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2013/04/equal-rights-in-free-market-economy.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2012/07/balanced-budget-for-america.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/istgtdnk.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2025/01/be-aware.html
The constitutional small "d" unrepresentative corrupt "dark money" Senate and Electoral College
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/dark-money-senate.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2024/01/if-that-is-not-absolute-corruption-of.html
https://dgjeep.blogspot.com/2022/09/the-facts-of-my-case-are-without.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=David+Jeep&type=Supreme-Court=Dockets
"Fake News Donny"
[3] The U.S. Supreme Court overturned the 40-year-old Chevron doctrine in a 6-3 decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo on June 28, 2024. The fascist corrupt despotic oligarchy now has jurisdiction over EVERYTHING!! And ANYTHING!!
[4] The approximate verbiage of the last clause of EVERY Post Civil War Amendment. On April 20, 1871, President Ulysses S. Grant signed one of the most important civil rights laws in U.S. history: the Ku Klux Klan Act. Section 1 of that law – known today as 42 U.S.C. § 1983 – empowers individuals to sue state and local government officials who violate their federal constitutional rights. The law was aimed at protecting Black Americans from white supremacist violence and murder in the postbellum South.
[6] Article III of the US Constitution posits a "supreme Court" among the many courts NOT a Supreme Court outside of the many. ALL Article III Judicial power REQUIRES the assent of an instant jury.
[8] Sophistry(?) is a logical fallacy that involves the use of deceptive, superficial arguments.
[9] sub silentio is a Latin phrase that means "under silence" or "in silence". It's often used in legal contexts to describe something that's implied but not explicitly stated. For example, a court might overrule a case's holding sub silentio without explicitly stating that it's doing so. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 362
[10] Bradley v. Fisher, supra, 80 U. S. 335, 80 U. S. 349, note, at 80 U. S. 350, Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 57 (1967) Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 (1978)
[11] Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 428 (1976)
[13] Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U.S. 345 (1983)
[14] Bogan v. Scott-Harris - 523 U.S. 44 (1997) Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 372, 372-376; Amy v. Supervisors, 11 Wall. 136, 138
[16] A final judgement against Ida B. Wells who had won her case on December 24, 1884, when the local circuit court granted her a $500 (~$17,917 in 2025) award. The railroad company appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which reversed the lower court's ruling in 1887. It concluded: "We think it is evident that the purpose of the defendant in error was to harass with a view to this suit, and that her persistence was not in good faith to obtain a comfortable seat for the short ride."[20] Wells was ordered to pay court costs. Her reaction to the higher court's decision revealed her strong convictions on civil rights and religious faith, as she responded: "I felt so disappointed because I had hoped such great things from my suit for my people. ... O God, is there no ... justice in this land for us?"
· [17] If there had not been binding precedent upper courts would have gone along with the lower courts in 1892: Homer Plessy (though not a woman, he is a pivotal figure) challenged Louisiana's train segregation, leading to the Plessy v. Ferguson "separate but equal" doctrine.
· 1940: Sarah Keys Evans (often cited as a major precursor) challenged segregated bus seating, initiating a lawsuit that eventually led to the 1955 Keys v. Carolina Coach Co. decision by the ICC.
· 1942: Irene Morgan was arrested for refusing to move to the back of a bus in Virginia, which led to the 1946 Supreme Court ruling in Morgan v. Virginia that segregated interstate travel was unconstitutional.
· 1947: "Journey of Reconciliation" - A group of 16 individuals (8 black, 8 white), including Bayard Rustin and George Houser, participated in a two-week "Freedom Ride" across the Upper South to test the Morgan v. Virginia decision.
· 1955: Claudette Colvin (15 years old) refused to give up her bus seat in Montgomery, Alabama, nine months before Rosa Parks.
· 1955: Mary Louise Smith and other individuals in Montgomery also challenged segregation on buses prior to or around the time of Parks.
[18] Article III of the US Constitution posits a "supreme Court" among the many courts NOT a Supreme Court outside of the many. ALL Article III Judicial power REQUIRES the assent of an instant jury.
Trump, as he is prone to do is TRYING to STEAL, the issue of capitalization of the term supreme court. In a Feb. 2026 Truth Social post, Donald Trump announced he would refer to the Supreme Court in lowercase ("supreme court") to show a "complete lack of respect" following a ruling against his tariff program. from me.
[21] As originated and supported by the Magna Carta's (1215) Chapter 39 and 61
