This is where the comment about the Constitution only being viable for a moral people–we rely on those with power acting morally when force is involved (and punishing them under the law when they don’t).

“Inalienable rights are a bulwark against tyranny. “ and “However, that relies upon honest servants who, for good or ill reflect the cultural zeitgeist.”

I don’t deny the existence of inalienable rights, nor do I contest the requirement for “honest servants”; in the absence of the latter, however, there’s still the issue of mortals recognizing, and particularly, enforcing, those inalienable rights against usurpers. Stalin questioned the extent of the Pope’s divisions, indicating some understanding of the earthly mandate for practical action.

For example, I’m not aware of any American community with statutes or ordinances favoring arson or battery; each is proscribed by law, yet there are numerous recent examples of such laws going unenforced and, seemingly, condoned by those charged with enforcement.

It’s only a matter of degree from burning a Starbucks to disregarding Constitutional prescriptions (as one example, consider the alleged violations of the Fourth Amendment regarding civil forfeiture); at what point is a mechanism engaged to prevent such abuse, what is that mechanism, precisely how does it, or is supposed to, operate, and who, exactly, is responsible for controlling it?

Eisenhower sent uniformed military to Arkansas and Kennedy did it in Alabama to enforce racial equity; should we expect the sitting President, whomever it may be, to similarly dispatch troops to enforce each inalienable right affirmed in the Constitution?

“How are the terms of our constitution enforced?”

Through a variety of mechanisms; mainly through Supreme Court rulings as to the constitutionality of legislative and regulatory measures and, through DOJ prosecutions, which enforce constitutional terms.

However, that relies upon honest servants who, for good or ill reflect the cultural zeitgeist. Thus, Pres. Adams’ aphorism; “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

That phrase; “a moral and religious people” is IMO easily misinterpreted. Adams’ assertion is that the moral standards necessary for societal cohesion (and thus loyalty to a society’s constitution) can only last if a society’s moral standards are agreed to originate from an entity which stands above humanity’s spectrum of individual opinions.

At base, it matters not whether there actually is an entity declaring its moral standards as the highest truth. What matters from the standpoint of societal cohesion is that positing such an entity to exist and it having offered a ‘higher truth’ is the only way to achieve a basis for asserting there to be inalienable rights.

As, ‘rights’ whose basis is the current consensus of the majority can (and will) at a later date be modified/rescinded by another majority. And, when ‘rights’ are rescindable, in actuality they are revocable privileges. And, privileges are entirely subject to governmental consensus, which is simply a reflection of the current power structure.

Inalienable rights are a bulwark against tyranny. Whereas rights which in actuality are revocable privileges… ensure the rise of tyranny.

Is it a sodium fluoride in your water problem?

IQ?

Suicidal tendencies?

Roman games at the coliseum like NFL football?

That’s not going to work here unless the traitors manage to disarm the public. A necessary step in fulfilling the Left’s agenda. If the left manages to steal the election, all of Biden’s ‘policies’ will drive America into another Civil War.

The Left’s ideological fanaticism and willful blindness are leading them to a terrible fate. And their insane hatred for Trump is blinding them to the reality that losing to Trump is the only thing that can save them from the fate they so richly deserve.

One underappreciated fact about Trump is that he always complied with court orders.

Not relevant, but 2 more predictions: Dems will reverse position and say that federal aid can be withheld from states that do not comply with anti-racism or Covid rules, and federal Gov’t can send national guard or army to shut down non-compliant events against governor’s wishes.

As Glenn Reynolds likes to say, if it weren’t for double standards, they’d have no standards at all.

Since 2004, chavismo’s batting 1.000 at the TSJ. The government has lost not a single case out of 45,474.
It bears repeating, because clarity on this point will be crucial to how things play out: Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal is a straight-up farce.
It’s not that its “flawed”. It’s not that its impartiality is “suspected by critics.”
It’s that the government literally never loses there because its decisions are decided at the Vicepresident’s office, again – and I hate to overuse the word – literally.
You know that. I know that. Anybody who’s looked into this semi-seriously knows that. There are, after all, 45,474 reasons we can be sure.

TSJ= Tribunal Supremo de Justicia: Venezuela’s Supreme Court.

The 45,474 cases obviously include cases the TSJ refused to review.