Politics

Gerrymandering Isn’t Just Political—It’s Economic By Julianne Malveaux

May 5, 2026

malveaux

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Elections aren’t supposed to stop midstream, but in Louisiana, they did. After the Supreme Court stepped into the state’s redistricting fight, Governor Jeff Landry halted congressional primaries that were already underway. People were voting, and the rules changed in real time. That is not a technical glitch. It is power being exercised—and protected.

This is not about lines on a map. It is about who holds power and how that power determines who gets resources. The Court has long treated partisan gerrymandering as a “political question,” something it prefers to avoid. Even when it intervenes on racial grounds, as in Allen v. Milligan, the result is rarely resolution. States redraw maps, courts revisit them, and uncertainty lingers. In Louisiana, litigation like Robinson v. Ardoin has created a cycle rather than a solution, leaving elections—and voters—caught in the middle.

There is nothing new about this. After Reconstruction, when Black political power briefly expanded, it was met not only with violence but with precision. District lines were drawn to contain that power, ensuring that even when Black people could vote, their votes would not translate into governing authority.

In 1868, Benjamin Franklin Randolph, a Black state senator in South Carolina, was assassinated in broad daylight at a train station in Abbeville. His killing was not random. It was part of a broader campaign to suppress Black political leadership—not just at the ballot box, but through terror. The methods have changed over time, but the objective of controlling Black political power has not.

Today’s gerrymandering uses more sophisticated tools, but it serves a familiar purpose. When districts are engineered to predetermine outcomes, accountability erodes. Elected officials do not have to persuade broad constituencies or compete for every vote. Too often, they do not have to deliver.

And when officials do not have to deliver, resources follow power rather than need. That is where the economic consequences become unmistakable.

Communities with diminished political influence are less able to secure investment. Schools go unrenovated. Infrastructure projects stall. Hospitals struggle or close. Broadband expansion stops just short of the neighborhoods that need it most. These are not isolated failures; they are the cumulative effects of political decisions shaped by distorted maps. Over time, those decisions constrain opportunity, limit mobility, and reinforce inequality.

This is how gerrymandering feeds the racial wealth gap—not through a single dramatic act, but through accumulation. A project delayed, a program underfunded, a priority shifted. Each decision may seem small, even routine. Together, they produce disparities that are then treated as inevitable rather than engineered.

Black communities have experienced this pattern for generations. Whether through “packing,” which concentrates Black voters into a small number of districts, or “cracking,” which disperses them across many, the result is the same: diminished influence. Diminished influence translates directly into diminished economic capacity.

Representation is not symbolic; it is distributive. Who counts politically determines who receives investment, protection, and opportunity. Louisiana’s current turmoil makes that reality plain. When elections can be halted and maps redrawn in real time, the rules of representation themselves become tools of power. And when power is managed, so is the flow of resources.

Alabama offers a parallel lesson. The Supreme Court’s decision in Allen v. Milligan acknowledged that Black voters were being shortchanged under the Voting Rights Act, but that recognition did not end the struggle. It simply opened another phase in a continuing contest over representation and investment. The fight over maps is, at its core, a fight over whether underinvestment will persist.

Gerrymandering is not the only driver of economic inequality, but it is one of the most durable and least visible. Distorted maps produce distorted outcomes, and over time, distorted economies. We debate maps as if they are abstractions. They are not. They are blueprints for who prospers—and who does not.

Even Under Attack, Black Southern Voters Can Deliver the Senate for Democrats By Kevin Harris

May 1, 2026

Kevin Harris

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Democrats have momentum as the midterms approach. A string of recent victories has fueled optimism that Democrats could retake the House of Representatives and even reclaim the Senate. At a moment of rising global tensions and persistent economic strain on working families, Democratic control of Congress would offer a critical check on the Trump administration.

But Senate majorities are not built on national waves alone. They are won or lost in a handful of fiercely competitive states. And this cycle, the path to a Democratic majority runs directly through the South.

Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia could determine control of the Senate. While each state has its own political identity, they share a common reality: Black voters are central to any winning Democratic coalition. If Democrats fail to fully invest in mobilizing Black voters, they risk repeating the mistakes that have cost them power in the past.

That challenge has become more urgent in light of recent Supreme Court decisions that gutted the Voting Rights Act. Now, states are largely free to gerrymander and suppress Black political power. Without the preclearance protections that once required states with histories of discrimination to get federal approval before changing voting laws, access to the ballot increasingly depends on post-facto litigation rather than prevention.

In practical terms, that means Black voter participation is shaped not just by enthusiasm, but by the rules governing registration, district lines, and access to the polls. In key Southern states, these structural barriers disproportionately affect Black voters, making sustained investment in turnout efforts even more critical.

Start with Texas. Long seen as a Republican stronghold, the state has been inching toward competitiveness as its major metro areas of Houston, Dallas, Austin, and San Antonio grow more diverse. Black voters make up roughly 12 to 13 percent of the electorate, but their turnout has been inconsistent, especially in midterm elections.

In 2020, engagement surged in urban counties, helping narrow statewide margins. But that progress slipped in 2022, when turnout declined. For Democrats, even modest gains in Black turnout alongside strong gains with Latino voters could transform Texas from a long shot into a true battleground. A breakthrough victory for Democrat James Talarico would flip a seat and reshape the national political map.

North Carolina presents a different kind of opportunity. The state has already been competitive for Democrats in recent years. With Black voters accounting for roughly 20 to 23 percent of the electorate, statewide races are often decided by razor-thin margins. A one- or two-point increase in Black turnout can determine the outcome.

Yet, like Texas, North Carolina saw a drop in participation from presidential-year highs to the 2022 midterms. Democrats have a strong candidate in former Governor Roy Cooper, who has consistently demonstrated the ability to win statewide. But his success has always depended on robust Black voter engagement—which requires sustained national investment, not just candidate strength. Democrats have the right candidate in North Carolina, but the party must follow through with the right strategy. That strategy starts with robust resources for Black turnout across urban and rural communities.

Then there is Georgia, where the blueprint for success already exists. Black voters routinely make up nearly a third of the electorate in high-turnout elections and were instrumental in Democratic victories in the 2020 presidential election and the subsequent Senate runoffs. The reelection of Senator Raphael Warnock confirmed that these gains were not a one-time surge but the result of years of organizing and investment. Georgia shows what is possible when Black voters are prioritized as the foundation of a winning strategy. That approach must be reinforced for Senator Jon Ossoff to secure reelection this year.

What ties these states together is not just their competitiveness, but the fact that Black turnout is not guaranteed. Just because Black voters dislike Trump does not mean they are automatically ready to vote for Democrats. Democrats’ fate with Black voters rises and falls based on investment, outreach, and whether Black voters feel seen and heard. Too often, Democrats assume that demographic change alone will deliver victory. It will not. Elections are decided by the voters who actually show up on Election Day. Black turnout, especially in midterm cycles, must be earned.

This is where Democrats have stumbled before. Underinvestment in organizing, particularly in Black communities, has led to missed opportunities in states that were within reach. The lesson from recent elections is unmistakable: when Black turnout is high, Democrats win. When it dips, even slightly, the path narrows or disappears entirely.

The stakes could not be higher. Control of the Senate determines which laws pass, which judges are confirmed, and whether a governing agenda can move forward at all. In an era of razor-thin margins, a single seat can decide the direction of the country.

If Democrats are serious about reclaiming the Senate in 2026, they must be equally serious about where they invest their time, resources, and attention. That means looking south and committing, early and aggressively, to turning out Black voters in Texas, North Carolina, and Georgia—especially in a legal landscape where Black access to the ballot is under attack.

The path is there. The data is clear. The only question is whether Democrats will act on it.

Kevin Harris is a Democratic strategist who has advised over 100 campaigns and ballot measures, including the past five presidential elections.

White House 2027 Budget Proposal Ignores Affordability Crisis with Deep Cuts to Housing, Education, and Consumer Protection By Charlene Crowell

April 17, 2026

Congressional Budget Office

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - At a time when American families across the country are struggling to cope with rising costs of living, the White House’s Fiscal Year 2027 budget proposal makes clear that federal help for working people is not in the cards.

“A historic paradigm shift in the budget process is occurring and is producing real results for the American public” stated Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget in his comments to Congress.

If approved by Congress, this new “paradigm” will increase defense spending by $1.5 trillion –44 percent increase, while slashing $73 billion from domestic programs that many people have come to rely upon, like rental assistance, career
training, and the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program.

In reaction, a chorus of concerned opposition has emerged, demanding that Congress account for how taxpayer dollars will be spent.

For example, the Center on Budget & Policy Priorities summarized its concerns with an April 03 statement: “The public is clear that it is deeply concerned about affordability. Yet the budget either proposes nothing to address core affordability issues or makes them worse… It makes cuts in a range of areas that matter to families, including education; healthy fruits and vegetables for low-income pregnant and postpartum parents, toddlers, and preschoolers; food assistance for low-income seniors; and utility assistance. It also cuts the number of households who get help paying the rent.”

Other advocates addressed specific concerns on the future of education, housing, and consumer protections.

In response to the proposed $3.2 billion cut to the Department of Education, National Education Association President Becky Pringle said, “This administration is sending an unmistakable message: students, educators, and working families do not matter. It turns its back on students with disabilities, students from low-income families, students who live in rural areas — students that need more support, not less.”

Among the Education Department’s post-secondary programs slated for elimination in FY 2027 are: Student Support Services, Federal Family Education Loans, Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, Upward Bound, and Career, Technical, and Adult Education.

Proposed cuts to housing programs are even more severe: $10.7 billion. An analysis by the Bipartisan Policy Center showed that HUD programs affected by the cuts include:

$4.6 billion to eliminate Community Development Block Grants (CBDG)
$922 million cut to homelessness assistance
$285M reduction in rental assistance that helps the elderly and people with disabilities;
$206 million from family self-sufficiency and job training programs:
$60 million to eliminate programs for fair housing investigation, enforcement and training programs

Last year, nearly six million consumers – a 200 percent increase – filed reports with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) complaint database. Although federal court rulings denied the Trump administration’s efforts to shutter the agency, the FY 2027 budget now proposes an 84 percent cut to examination staff, from 463 to just 75 people.

Such a severe staff cut would leave remaining employees unable to fulfill the agency’s statutory duties that span investigations, supervision, enforcement, and community outreach. At the same time, financial bad actors would get a green light to continue predatory lending, financial scams, and junk fees – all of which siphon off hard-earned consumer dollars.

“The CFPB cannot meet its statutory obligations at these bare bones staffing levels and the resulting lack of oversight will help bad financial services firms evade compliance with longstanding federal consumer protection laws and regulations," stated Graciela Aponte-Diaz, vice president of community engagement at the Center for Responsible Lending’s (CRL) Julian Bond Institute. “The CFPB already has cancelled enforcement actions that would have returned hundreds of millions of dollars to consumers.”

Similar comments came from Tom Feltner, Associate Director of Consumer Policy at Americans for Financial Reform.

“Rather than cutting enforcement, supervision, and outreach staff, we should be strengthening the capacity of those offices to hold financial wrongdoers accountable, prevent emerging risks like those that caused the 2008 financial crisis, and prevent the wave of scams making everyone’s lives more difficult and more expensive,” said Feltner.

For Black America, already financially short-changed by nagging wealth inequality, the nation’s affordability crisis worsens our ongoing quest for full participation in this nation’s opportunities.

Our hopes and dreams still yearn to know and enjoy America’s bounty, and not just its disproportionate burdens. A fair federal budget enacted by Congress is not only appropriate but deserved.

Charlene Crowell is a senior fellow with the Center for Responsible Lending. She can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Could Birthright Citizenship Case Mean the Start of a Trump Agenda to Deport Blacks? By Barrington Salmon

March 10, 2026

DonaldTrump

Supreme Court Building

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - Donald Trump has been in office for slightly more than a year. But he has spent an inordinate amount of time before and during his second term freely tossing around clearly racist statements, demonizing African Americans, shredding civil rights protections, and diminishing the historical contributions of Black people in the establishment and growth of America. He has done these things, all while advocating for and trying to eliminate birthright citizenship.

On January 20, 2025, the day he took office, Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) seeking to end to automatic birthright citizenship for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or parents who have temporary legal status. Trump’s attempts are despite the U. S. Constitution’s 14th Amendment which states, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."

Constitutional scholars and legal experts say this Amendment applies to all children born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' nationality or legal status. But, in a case expected to be heard by the U. S. Supreme Court April 1, the Trump Administration argues that the 14th Amendment, which was ratified on July 9, 1868, was intended to apply only to the "freedom of the slave race," meaning the citizenship of children of the formerly enslaved.

Regardless of the Trump argument, which – on the surface - appears to be a safety net for Black people, some believe his racist rhetoric and actions could lead to a slippery slope if the Supreme Court agrees with his first argument. The next move could be an attempt to question the citizenship of African-Americans whom he has not only repeatedly slandered, but - without apology – depicted as apes by posting former President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle on social media. The administration says it was a staffer who created the post but has said that person was not punished for the post. Nor did Trump apologize.

“Trump is so mentally compromised I don’t know what he did. But there are people around him with devious intent towards Black people and who have embraced anti-Blackness. They seek to weaken African Americans’ political power through voter suppression and seek to make us second-class citizens – again,” says Barbara Arnwine, president and founder of the Transformative Justice Coalition, who served for decades as head of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. “I don’t doubt that there are evil-minded people and others who do not believe in the equality of race and gender. They hold a white, male, patriarchal view of the United States and seek to impose that on the rest of us.”

The 14th Amendment was ratified in direct response the 1857 Dred Scott Decision, known for the infamous statement that the Black man, still enslaved at the time, had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect".

Arnwine said she will watch the upcoming case closely April 1. “The Birthright citizenship issue is so dangerous. We can’t ignore the Supreme Court. We absolutely cannot.”

Some might call it a stretch to even ask whether a plaintiff could try to take citizenship from African Americans. But Olivia Sedwick, a counselor with the Lawyers’ Committee, said the attempt is possible.

“That’s a good question, and it’s not so far-fetched,” she said. “The Executive Order is not retroactive, it only works forward from Feb 19, 2025. Babies born after that, the legal status of the parent would be questioned in order to determine the citizenship of the child.”

Sedwick warns that Americans should watch closely how the government is currently talking about citizenship in ways that could lead to other questions.

“They have gone after American-born people who were born on military bases because they weren’t born on American soil. Everyone knows that that is still technically on American soil but we’re seeing that happening,” Sedwick said.

Human Rights lawyer Nicole Lee said there are significant legal and constitutional hurdles that would impede or totally block Trump from following through with any case against African-American citizenship. However, it may not stop him from trying either legally or illegally.

“The 14th amendment is a constitutional hurdle. By law that would be very difficult [to do]. However, he has command of the Armed Forces so he could de-facto do that,” said Lee, former executive director of TransAfrica. “Can he do it legally? It’s not legal to deport citizens. It’s codified, ratified, yet they have.”

Trump’s intemperate racial animus is well documented. He has opined about White people being second-class citizens, expressed fears about White erasure and complained about the rampant “reverse discrimination” that he claims is dogging White Americans. He even invited White South African farmers to become citizens in the U. S. as if the racist apartheid system never existed and in America, he ordered the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to investigate discrimination against Whites even though Black unemployment has consistently remained at twice the rate as Whites’.

Even communications experts have struggled to make sense of it all.

Dwight Kirk, a spokesman for the Coalition of Black Trade Unionists, said Trump’s mission appears to be to whiten America.

“Just on the face of all of his attempts since he returned, him wanting to snatch birthright citizenship from Black folks would not be a crazy idea,” said Kirk. “Foreign-born people are his first target. If he gets away with that, he could try to use more voodoo and go after Black Americans and others. It’s important to say though, that as an authoritarian, citizenship to him means subservience … No authoritarian believes in citizenship. It’s anathema to their program. If citizenship is recognized, you can’t impose your power and will on other people.”

Veteran labor leader Bill Fletcher, Jr. took it several steps further.

“I think it actually goes deeper. In order to understand Trump and presidential advisor (Stephen) Miller, you have to accept that they are fascist and have a neo-apartheid view of the US. That’s really critical,” said Fletcher. “What we’re seeing is the neo-fascist playbook of Western Europe, the US, Canada, Australia, Israel and parts of Eastern Europe which is summarized by the White Replacement Theory – their belief that there is a plan afoot to eliminate white people by bringing in immigrants of color into these respective countries.”

Fletcher said fear of being replaced by Black and other non-white people has resulted in frenzied calls by far-right extremist individuals and organizations to deport, remove and kill if necessary – via ethnic cleansing – Black Africans, Latinos, and Indigenous peoples.

He also said the vision Trump and Miller have encompasses more than just the neo-apartheid pillar of completely separating Blacks and Whites.

“We’re confronting a rightwing movement that is now fascist,” Fletcher said. “There was the belief that it was shadow play but the consequences going forward could be death squads, assassinations, jailing. I’m not being hyperbolic. What is about to play out is real. We are in transition. It could be a transition to an abolitionist democracy which was used to describe Reconstruction, an expansion of democracy or a Blade Runner-type existence.”

A major part of the strategy comes from Project 2025, a right-wing power-oriented plan to consolidate the Federal Government, under the advice and supervision of the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, Fletcher said.

He concluded, “Until we come out of the other side, we will have to contend with a mediocre, inexperienced crop of white men and women chosen by Trump to his cabinet and other key administration positions, as well as implementation of Project 2025.”

Trump is Trying to Create a 'Post-Constitutional America' By Dr. Wilmer J. Leon, III

NEWS ANALYSIS

DonaldTrump

(TriceEdneyWire.com) - “We are in a post constitutional moment in our country. Our constitutional institutions, understandings, and practices have all been transformed, over decades, away from the words on the paper into a new arrangement—a new regime if you will—that pays only lip service to the old Constitution.” - Russell Vought, president, Center for Renewing America; former director of the Office of Management and Budget during the Trump administration.

Donald Trump has been sworn in twice as President of the United States; once on January 20, 2017, and again on January 20, 2025. Both times he swore a solemn oath, mandated by Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution to the best of his “…Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States".

A solemn oath is a formal, binding, and serious affirmation that confirms truthfulness, duty, and a pledge of service. In this case, public service, not personal enrichment. It is a deeply personal commitment, frequently invoking a higher power or authority to guarantee the sincerity of the oath-taker.

To be consistent with the concept of “separation of powers”, where the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of the government operate independent of each other, the framers of the constitution included the oath of office into Article II. Their intent was to force the executive to swear an allegiance to the constitution, before God and commit (solemnly swear) to the binding promise of public service to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution".

How could Donald Trump, an American president, swear an oath to defend a constitution that he and/or his closest advisors believes is no longer relevant or applicable? Was he lying when he took the oath? It is important to remember, not only has Donald Trump sworn this oath, every member of his cabinet has also sworn a similar oath. The contradictions are blinding and maddening.

Some might ask, “how can you attribute the words of Russell Vought to Donald Trump?” That answer is simple. Vought has been Trump’s director of OMB twice. As the co-author of Project 2025, ProPublica labeled Vought, “the Shadow President” … “the man who has drawn the road map for Trump’s second term. Vought has consolidated power to an extent that insiders say they feel like “he is the commander in chief.” To my knowledge, I have not heard Trump challenge or disavow anything that Vought has said.

Through their unconstitutional rhetoric and actions, Trump and his sycophants are trying to push the country towards a “Post-Constitutional America” and into a, autocracy, kleptocracy, or dictatorship.

Trump’s advisor Steven Bannon told the country in 2019 that the administration’s mission is the ‘deconstruction of the administrative state”. Vought rails against a "ruling elite" or "regime" composed of federal bureaucrats, and political figures that has hijacked American democracy, acting as a "deep state" that promotes "woke" policies and subverts constitutional order. However, when one looks into the Trump administration’s policies, they are transitioning power away from the federal government and into the hands of the oligarchal “ruling elite”. Corporate interest, control and greed are imposing themselves upon the American people every day.

When Vought says, “We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. We want, when they wake up in the morning, we want them to not want to go to work. Because they are increasingly viewed as the villains.” He is saying very clearly that he wants to do away constitutional powers that allow other branches of government to serve as a “check and balance” on the executive branch. This not an ideology of “radical constitutionalism” as he calls it, it’s laying the foundation for the return of the monarch, the authoritarian, the dictator.

Prior to Trump murdering fisherman in the Caribbean Sea and Eastern Pacific Ocean, the administration, through Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, fired the top Judge Advocates General (JAGs) for the Army, Navy, and Air Force. By doing away with all the top attorneys in the military, there’s no one left to tell him that killing civilians without due process is illegal.

Trump has been very clear for years; he wants to do away with the constitutionally protected right of “birthright citizenship”. He issued Executive Order 14160 on January 20, 2025, titled "Protecting the Meaning and Value of American Citizenship”. Executive Order 14160 directs federal agencies to deny passports and birth certificates to children born in the U.S. if neither parent is a citizen or lawful permanent resident. There’s one problem with this order; it’s called the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution. It reads as follows: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside". You don’t need a law degree to figure this one out. If you can read, this one is pretty simple. Without the 14^th Amendment, there are no Irish Americans, Italian Americans or African Americans, since the only peoples with roots in the U.S. are native Americans.

Trump wants to expand the role of the Federal government in the election process. Earlier in February Trump said, “We should take over the voting, the voting in at least many—15 places. The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.” The Constitution already addresses the election process. It’s called Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof…” Courts have repeatedly ruled that President Trump’s 2025 Executive Order 14248 overstepped his authority by attempting to impose voting rules not authorized by Congress. Judge Kollar-Kotelly declared that both Sections 2(d) and 3(d) of Executive Order 14248 are “inconsistent with the constitutional separation of powers and cannot lawfully be implemented.”

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the Trump administration is working hard to “make sure we have the right people voting” heading into the 2026 midterms. Who are “the right people”? Again, there’s an obstacle in the way. The 15th Amendment prohibits the federal government and states from denying a citizen the right to vote. It reads as follows: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." Again, if you can read, this one is pretty simple.

During a November 2024 interview with Tucker Carlson, Vought said, “We're trying to build a shadow office of Legal Counsel so that when a future president says, what legal authorities do I need to shut down the riots? We want to be able to shut down the riots and not have the legal community or the defense community to come in and say, that's an inappropriate use of what you're trying to do.” Since the beginning of 2026 and most recently in response to the protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807. This act allows the president to deploy the U.S. military domestically to suppress civil unrest. The First Amendment to the US Constitution prohibits Congress from making laws “…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".

Even given these examples, it is important to understand that Trump is not the causation of this threat to the constitution, he is the culmination of the threat. Russell Vought was professing these threats to our civil rights and civil liberties before Trump came to power. Trump had nothing to do with the flood of corporate money polluting the American electoral process. That was Lewis Powell with “The Powell memo” in 1971 resulting in the 2010 Citizens United case. Associate Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas came to the bench in 1991, Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in 2006, and Amy Coney Barrett in 2020. They were all a part of the misguided 6-3 vote holding that U.S. presidents have absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions taken within their core constitutional powers and at least presumptive immunity for all official acts. Basically, that ruling places the American president above the law.

Contrary to the very incendiary and dangerous rhetoric of this administration, it is still "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

We Are Not in A “Post-Constitutional America” even though Trump and his minions are trying to create one.

Dr. Wilmer Leon is a nationally broadcast radio talk-show host. Author of Politics Another Perspective. Host of Inside the Issues w/ Dr. Wilmer Leon on SiriusXM Satellite radio channel 126. Go to www.wilmerleon.com or email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.. www.twitter.com/drwleon and Dr. Leon’s Prescription at Facebook.com.