empire watch, latest
Comments 30

Did the U.S. Supreme Court Just Nullify the U.S. Constitution?

Eric Zuesse

On June 26th, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its 5-4 majority decision in the landmark case of “Trump v. Hawaii”, about President Trump’s commonly misnamed ‘Muslim ban’. This decision probably established a new precedent: that national security is an interest that overrides the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Here is how it does this outrageous thing, which is so shocking for such persons — who are oath-bound to uphold the U.S. Constitution — to do:

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says, in full:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or 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.”

The traditionally-called “Establishment Clause” is the part of the First Amendment that says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

On the opening page of its 92-page decision, the Supreme Court says, “We now decide whether the President had authority under the Act to issue the Proclamation, and whether the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” On the 7th page, it says, “Plaintiffs [the ‘Hawaii’ side in the case of ‘Trump v. Hawaii’] further claimed that the Proclamation violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, because it was motivated not by concerns pertaining to national security but by animus toward Islam.” Page 26 says, “The First Amendment provides, in part, that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.’ Our cases recognize that ‘[t]he clearest command of the Establishment Clause is that one religious denomination cannot be officially preferred over another’.”

The Court’s decision asserts, first, that Trump’s Muslim ban, of any immigrants from any of the five nations of Iran, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya — all of which 5 nations have Muslim majorities — is not discriminatory on the basis of religion; and that therefore no religious denomination is being officially preferred over another, in that ban or “Proclamation.”

Second, here is how the decision asserts — at least provisionally, and (as will be shown) likely permanently — that national security overrides the Establishment Clause (and therefore overrides the Constitution itself): On page 29, it says, “plaintiffs seek to invalidate a national security directive. … Their claim accordingly raises a number of delicate issues regarding the scope of the constitutional right [right to “the free exercise thereof”] and the manner of proof. The Proclamation, moreover, is facially neutral toward religion. Plaintiffs therefore ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy.”

The Court’s decision then entirely ignores — and never even so much as touches upon — the “sincerity” matter, at all, or in any form. Therefore, the majority decision is implicitly asserting that the sincerity of the rationale that Trump gave for his “Proclamation” (his so-called ‘Muslim ban’) is immaterial to this case, not relevant to determining whether or not the Proclamation “officially” prefers any religion over any other. The 5-member majority are, in effect, asserting that, by the term “officially,” is meant “explicitly,” or publicly admitted. For example (in another hotly-debated historical instance): If Adolf Hitler did not publicly admit that his intention was to exterminate every Jew on Earth, then (according to this reasoning from those five jurists) he was not responsible for the Holocaust (the attempt by his followers to exterminate Jews, within each of those officials’ own sphere of authority, as granted to them by Hitler). Those five jurists are saying that, since Trump never publicly admitted that he was a bigoted person and never explicitly asserted that religion had anything to do with his Proclamation, Trump’s Proclamation simply did not violate the Establishment Clause. That’s the end of the story — Hawaii’s assertion that Trump’s publicly declared reason needs to be challenged on the basis of its sincerity is simply, and peremptorily, rejected — to “ask the Court to probe the sincerity of the stated justifications for the policy” is placed, by them, simply out-of-bounds.

However, prosecution for any crime requires any court to consider what the motivations of any possible defendant for that crime were in the given matter. To obtain a criminal conviction, the prosecution must establish the presence of two elements at the time of the alleged crime — namely, actus reus (“guilty act”) and mens rea (“guilty mind”); but these five members of the U.S. Supreme Court effectively rule out-of-bounds the very possibility that a U.S. President (or, specifically, this U.S. President) might, on any occasion (but specifically, this occasion), have been “insincere” (or had “a guilty mind” — guilty of actually having violated the First Amendment, in this case). So: these five jurists proved their own guilty minds — and they thereby impose upon the entire nation this nullification of our nation’s Constitution, simply casting aside both executive accountability and the Constitution’s supreme legal authority in our land. Is that treasonous? It certainly violates their oaths-of-office. But is it treasonous?

It is, in any event, the way that these 5 judges dismissed any consideration of Trump’s motive for his ‘Muslim ban’ — this particular “entry policy” issued by the Proclamation. However, what about the question itself, of “whether the entry policy violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.” Well, if you aren’t being allowed to question what its motive was, then you aren’t being allowed to question the Constitutionality of the ban, either.

The Court’s mega-scandalous decision closes:

The Government has set forth a sufficient national security justification to survive rational basis review. We express no view on the soundness of the policy. We simply hold today that plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits of their constitutional claim.

[Section] V
Because plaintiffs have not shown that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, we reverse the grant of the preliminary injunction as an abuse of discretion. Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555

U. S. 7, 32 (2008). The case now returns to the lower courts for such further proceedings as may be appropriate.

They declare (but are they sincere about this?) that “We express no view on the soundness of the policy.” They bounce the matter back down to “the lower courts,” without even so much as having considered the mens rea issue — which was central to the case before them. The President’s having avoided admitting the fact that bigotry was involved in his Proclamation, has been accepted as final on the matter, for these five jurists. But would it be final if Hawaii were to continue in “the lower courts” to challenge the Proclamation? According to CNBC’s news-report about the decision:

Neal Katyal, attorney for the challengers, said in a statement. ‘Now that the Court has upheld it, it is up to Congress to do its job and reverse President Trump’s unilateral and unwise travel ban’.” Obviously, Ketyal won’t take the matter back down to the lower court in the case. Perhaps his challenge to the ban had actually been only political, to embarrass Republicans, in order that the Democratic Party can continue to holier-than-thou moralize their supposed superiority above the bigotry and/or sheer stupidity, of the President’s (and Republican-supported) “ban.”

Here is the actual type of “establishment of religion” that I believe that Trump is here imposing (and which the five far-right jurists today are trying to help him to impose upon the nation) — it’s more against Shiite Muslims than against Sunnis — who constitute the vast majority of Muslims and virtually the entirety of the ones who have perpetrated terrorism anywhere other than in Israel (and this President is not supposed to be the President of Israel):

This case is not, as Hawaii (Ketyal) was asserting, a Trumpian bigotry against Islam. Only five nations were included in the ban, and so it applies to only a small percentage of the world’s Muslims. Though the Court accepted the President’s flimsy assertion that these, and only these, nations pose such a national-security threat to the United States as to warrant a total immigration-ban, the actual evidence regarding Islamic terrorism in the United States has been overwhelming that virtually only fundamentalist Sunnis have perpetrated it; no Shiites have. With the lone exception of Somalia, none of these five banned nations is Sunni majority and Sunni controlled — they’re all either Shiite majority or Shiite-dominated, or (in the case of Libya) failed states without any nationwide government because of the U.S.-and-allied invasion in 2011. (And so, Trump is banning refugees from that country which his Democratic predecessor Obama had destroyed — let them escape to Europe instead!)

The U.S. Deep State has been trying since 1949 to overthrow Syria’s Government and replace it with one that would be controlled by the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family who own Saudi Arabia and are allied with the U.S. aristocracy (America’s “Deep State”). Yemen right now is being bombed to smithereens by the U.S.-Saudi-UAE alliance, and this operation is supporting, instead of opposing, fundamentalist Sunnis (such as ISIS in Yemen, and Al Qaeda in Yemen, neither of which group of jihadists is in the Shiite region of Yemen, which we’re bombing and destroying, while we’re claiming that this is ‘anti-terrorist’). The actual facts indicate that any “Muslim ban” should be focused against Saudi Arabia — and this ban would be authentically to protect against terrorism, not to disadvantage any particular religion — but Trump instead sold the Sauds $350 billion of U.S.-made weapons. That global all-time-record high U.S. military sale to the Sauds gives them far more clout over the U.S. Government than the U.S. Government has over them. No wonder why the U.S. Government protects them for 9/11, etc.

Regarding Somalia, the only article online about “Somalia-United States Relations” is at Wikipedia and doesn’t indicate any terrorist incidents in the U.S. as having been at all Somali. Furthermore, Wikipedia’s article “Foreign Relations of Somalia” goes country-by-country, but doesn’t indicate anywhere any link to terrorism, against any country, at all.

However, notwithstanding the actual facts in this case, these five far-right jurists just trashed the U.S. Constitution, and thereby allowed this President’s bigoted and/or stupid Proclamation, which possesses no authentic national-security justification whatsoever, to become imposed, regardless even of whether it is sincere, or comports with the Establishment Clause. The precedent here is carte-blanche to this President and to any of his successors. A U.S. President’s will, supersedes the U.S. Constitution, if a ‘national security’ excuse — no matter how flimsy or even counterfactual — is being asserted. His/her sincerity — and even the facts as opposed to the mere allegations from a President — cannot be challenged in U.S. courts.

Hawaii’s (Ketyal’s) challenge, under the Establishment Clause, was sloppy, presuming as it did, that Trump is “anti-Musim” instead of anti-Shiite, which seems to be more like the reality. But, in any event, both the challenge, and the way that the U.S. Supreme Court handled it, were incompetent, at best. This pathetic Court decision establishes not only the precedent for banning consideration in U.S. courts of whether a sitting President may effectively be challenged as to his sincerity on a given matter, but also precedent for treating “national security” as being more important than the U.S. Constitution itself. If Trump had intelligently formulated his ban on the basis of the relevant data, then maybe these five jurists could have put together some sort of intelligent case to uphold his ban. But, instead, those jurists made a mess of everything, and a zero of the U.S. Constitution that they are duty-bound to uphold.

No lower court can make good on the harm that those jurists — Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kennedy — did and do. Mark Joseph Stern’s article at Slate opened with an accurate summary of it:

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court affirmed and expanded the president’s power to exclude entire classes of immigrants from the country. Its 5–4 decision in Trump v. Hawaii is a historic triumph for Donald Trump and a crushing blow to immigration activists, who had hoped the courts might rein in the president’s sweeping order. Justice Neil Gorsuch, Trump’s appointee to the court, cast the decisive fifth vote to uphold the ban. While Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion for the court strives to rise above politics, Hawaii will almost certainly be remembered as a deeply partisan opinion in which five Republican appointees willfully ignored the flagrant bigotry of a Republican president.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.


  1. bevin says

    The problem is that Congress has been busily divesting itself of its powers to make law for decades now. Congress has given the President powers- to make war for example and to control borders and in doing so has undermined many of the principles enshrined in the US Constitution.
    The major reason that this has happened is that Congress does not want to be caught between the demands of constituents and those of oligarchical ‘donors’. Handing over powers to the Executive allows them-as in this case- to wring their hands and blame Trump. In fact Trump is merely using tools that Obama-who singularly failed to roll back Bush’s over reach- left him.
    The system is so rotten that one doubts whether it would burn if set alight.

  2. Antony says

    Any laws of equality or personal freedom clash with Sharia law: the two are mutually exclusive.
    Let the ME keep their Sharia and the West their personal freedom and gender/religious equality. The ME only knows Muslim brotherhood because of that, thus disabling universal brother+sisterhood.

  3. Michael McNulty says

    One of America’s Founding Fathers, I think James Madison, said the US Constitution is only any good if the judges uphold it. Otherwise like the idiot Bush junior said, “The Constitution is just a piece of paper.” Spoken like a true dictator.

  4. Kathy Woods says

    I am a fan of Eric Zuesse, and I agree that the Supreme Court issued a tortured and partisan decision that undermines the first amendment, and impermissibly expands the power of the executive. However, the article contains so many factual errors and misunderstandings about the legal issues reviewed, that it cannot really be considered valid criticism. Yes, the law is purposely arcane and often is used to bury important questions of justice under an avalanche of obfuscating mumbo jumbo, but you can’t just make up your own mumbo jumbo to knock it down. You have to either address the decision only in terms of the fairness of its result, or take the time to understand the legal arguments. Zuesse has clearly tried to wing it, and it doesn’t work. Mens rea, for example, is not even relevant in this case. It translates as “evil intent” but it is a specific term of art that can’t just be inserted for its literal meaning wherever you want. It’s a criminal intent requirement that has nothing to do with this case. Similarly Zuesse objection to the Court’s Statement about that they are not ruling on the soundness of the policy is not a flippant refusal to consider that issue, it is a standard statement about the scope of review in a TRO appeal. While the Court did wriggle out of considering certain argument#s, this does not cite to a relevant section of the opinion. I am not defending the decision, it is a poorly reasoned justification for obtaining a result consistent with the political ideologies of the 5 reactionary Justices. But this article puts forth a lot of misinformation and misses the mark in terms of offering any valid criticism.

    • The author responds to Kathy Woods’ statement that “Mens rea, for example, is not even relevant in this case. It translates as “evil intent” but it is a specific term of art that can’t just be inserted for its literal meaning wherever you want. It’s a criminal intent requirement that has nothing to do with this case.” Though this case was not (at least immediately) a criminal case, Hawaii’s challenge to the ban was based on mens rea, of the President in his Proclamation. If the American legal system acknowledges in its criminal-adjudicatory portion the existence of mens rea (i.e., is not ontologically based upon denying the very existence of consciousness), then Hawaii’s (Ketyal’s) challenging the ban as to its sincerity must be considered by the courts. This Court did not say that mens rea is inappropriate to be considered by the Supreme Court but only at the lower courts; they said that mens rea is out-of-bounds to be considered at all. Where, in the U.S. Constitution, does THAT come from? It doesn’t. These five jurists are outrageous.

      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        Clarence ‘Long Dong Silver’ Thomas is a ‘jurist’? I recall being impressed that the Republicans replaced Thurgood Marshall with a creature who melded imbecility with pleasing ‘Uncle Tom’ loyalty to his White bosses, in a sort of retrospective display of contempt for Marshall. Who does Thomas’s thinking for him since Scalia entered Valhalla

    • The author responds to Kathy Woods’ statement that “Similarly Zuesse objection to the Court’s Statement about that they are not ruling on the soundness of the policy is not a flippant refusal to consider that issue, it is a standard statement about the scope of review in a TRO appeal.” My article documented the “unsoundness” (the fallacious basis) of the Proclamation. The fallacious basis of the Proclamation is essential for Hawaii to have documented in order to be able to raise the mens rea question, of the President’s motive for this Proclamation. Hawaii failed to do that; Hawaii accused the President of bigotry against Muslims, instead of bigotry against Shiites; and, as I documented, the Proclamation did not discriminate against “Muslims.” But this Court didn’t consider the mens rea issue at all, in any form, and Hawaii had cast its issue as one of the President’s intent, which had no correlation with actual “national security.” For the Court to have ignored entirely the question of whether the President’s intent was different than what he stated it to be, was for the Court to have ignored what was at issue in this case. What was at issue in this case was: Was the President’s intent what he stated it to be? If not, was it discriminatory on the basis of religion? And, if it was discriminatory on the basis of religion, then does national security override the U.S. Constitution?

  5. King Kong says

    Who actually cares what the US does? It is already a corrupt society, morally and financially. its powers are declining very fast, as the the rest of the world rejects it. Who cares?
    They are generally to poor to buy EU produce any way, 40 million, 13 + % living in poverty, and 18 million in Somali like poverty. I am not aligned to that hell hole.
    The only thing in the US that has funding enough is the military, albeit not being able explain expenditures of a trillion dollars…..
    US, FO, go die somewhere, have a revolution, whatever, just leave the scene.

    • The people who are still destined to die at the hands of our behemoth will care. We are not done and there will be blood. As citizens of this country, there is really very little we can do about it. At the conclusion of this episode, if there is anyone left, I certain hope there is a lesson that will not be forgotten.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      The psychopathic US-Israeli ruling class will destroy the world rather than lose their God-ordained ‘Full Spectrum Dominance’ over it ALL. That’s why the USA counts.

    • Robbobbobin says

      “The only thing in the US that has funding enough is the military, albeit not being able explain expenditures of a trillion dollars…..”

      Learn how just being the country whose internal currency is also a “reserve currency” for many other countries brings home the bacon bigtime for the issuer of that currency and how gaming it further meets all the debts of its issuer no sweat; how and why Harry White pushed so hard at Bretton Woods to beat out Keynes’ Bancor with American gold and why and how Nixon pushed to co-opt the greedy dumbshit Saudis into the even more scammable petrodollar shiteburger when he had to blow Bretton Woods apart and you will find more than enough explanation. Scattered along exactly the same path you’ll also find more than enough explanation for a lot of other political manoeuvers, such as why Demented Hillary was so down on Ghaddafi as well as a large part of why Russia and Iran and China and a few others have really been painted as such bad boys by every US administration since Roosevelt’s. When high rolling criminals and liars are involved, what they do and how they do it are only inexplicable if you believe them when they say why they are doing it.

  6. rilme says

    There’s a glitch in the Comments program.
    When you post a comment, it may not appear.
    But it may be hidden there, to re-emerge later.

  7. Seamus Padraig says

    This article is silly. The First Amendment to the US constitution doesn’t apply to everyone from all over the world. Anyway, they’re not being prevented from practicing their religion; they’re just being prevented from entering the US, which, not being US citizens, they have no unconditional right to do. They’re free to stay home and practice their religion if they want.

    • Robbobbobin says

      “The First Amendment to the US constitution doesn’t apply to everyone from all over the world.”

      Fair enough. So get your United fucking States’ predatory aggression and financial manipulation out of most of the rest of the world or get it to men up and extend its fanchise to all of the peoples upon whom it presumes to dump its militaristic abortion of a democracy.

    • Robbobbobin says

      What is there about either Trump or an inherently oppositional partisan court pretending to practice rule-based “law” that doesn’t “digress” or invite endless “digression”?

  8. Richard Wicks says

    Well, this is bullshit. Made a post, never appears, apparently am banned which means this site is now fucking propaganda.

    Welcome to my spam list in my email box.

    • Listen up, Dick Wicks, we were warned that temporary problems might ensue , during re-coding not just of OFFG , but WordPress, who also appeared to be having consistent problems of coded penetration, after a Hack: one of which was bona-fide comments ending up in the SPAM list email box, ironically ..

      So, would you like some ole’ corned beef instead or a tin of 2 week old opened & uncooled Tuna , instead .. itsa’ bit OFF jeez , by now it stinks, but the Vultures, Wolves & Wildcats round my way ain’t fussy natural cleaners: so don’t worry about the aroma, coz’ the carcass will be stripped within a few days..

      Just be patient, normal service will be resumed as soon as possible and then interrupted again by Ashkenazi Apartheid programmers of Zion & their S.S. Secret Services, as soon as humanly possible, like on the 26/5/2018 .. 😉

  9. rilme says

    ” (the attempt by his followers to exterminate Jews,”
    There is a big “IF” missing from this statement. Were the followers of Hitler (still the gold standard for evil) trying to rid the Earth of Jews? That they failed so hugely points to a negative answer.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      And, according to the ‘Holocaust’ pseudo-religion, the Nazis held these Evil ambitions ONLY for Jews. For the Roma, Sinti, Poles, Soviet citizens, Slavs in general, gays, Jehovah’s Witnesses and those ‘unfit for life’, they held no malice whatsoever. ONLY Jews suffered, hence their unique status in the world, today and forever.

  10. rilme says

    ” (the attempt by his followers to exterminate Jews,”
    There’s a big “IF” missing from that part about Hitler (still the gold standard for evil) and his followers. Did the Germans make a serious attempt to rid the Earth of Jews? That they failed so hugely to do so points to a negative answer.

  11. Frankly Speaking says

    The US likes to demonise, but this ruling does not nullify the First Amendment. Clearly the US has fecked up in certain countries and the locals want revenge, this restriction is to stop them getting to the US, religion is incidental in this respect.

    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      Aggression, the destruction of whole societies, fomenting civil war and genocide is ‘fecking up’, in your moral universe, is it?

      • rilme says

        Yes. Did the US kill millions of Asians (and other people) ACCIDENTALLY?
        Or was that the US plan: kill people and steal stuff.
        (USUKisrael = Pirates of the Caribbean, and everywhere.)

        I think a lot of the US behaviour went as planned.
        Clearly the US has not fecked up in its destructive spree.

  12. If the constitution had been followed up to present time, if it had been the cornerstone of decision making and the foundation of the debate on policy, I could see a rational context for this article. Where is the rest of the story? Demonization of peoples is an obvious building block of our country. It is quite evident that it is also this country which creates hatred among religious sects in other people’s countries, for profit. This is policy. As we move across the worlds landscape devouring all in our path, using religion as a pretext, what effective voice do constitutionalists have? Where is congress? Which outcry has slowed the momentum of our death squads, torture chambers, rape, mutilation and genocides? I suppose we can say at least Hitler wasn’t a hypocrite. When we labeled an entire population ‘Gooks’ and used tax payer dollars to help a corporation devise the chemistry necessary for napalm to properly stick to their skin, was this constitutional? I don’t think so….it’s policy. I defaulted for a short time in military assignment, to managing problematic returning Vietnam vets. Their stories told me first hand. Their psychological damage was devastating. I learned that killing babies was troublesome to one’s psyche. I learned the reason why young girls, say, from 5 to 11 are treated differently than are teenage girls. Before raping and shooting the girls, the young ones had their tongues cut out. Why? Because the young one’s scream. Simple. Acceptable. Policy. Do we all remember the ‘body count’? Behind that count was policy. Has this policy changed? “There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the root”, said Thoreau. Policy is at the root. All the rest is symptom. Could this be so? We might want to wake up the constitution to ask it. It is obviously not participating in this conversation.

  13. Dani Tosheva says

    Well, he did say .. ” .. until WE understand what the Hell is going on.”

    And it is probably fair to say that most US citizens, since Benghazi especially thanks to Clinton & Obama, have Still not grasped or got a clue what the hell is & has been going on inside their own halls of power, driven by deep state ops. , yet; let alone all the false flag, white helmet, white house, white knights of shiny drones, &ISIS operating within others’ sovereign realms .. with and for the Muslim Wahhabi Brotherhood. Well highlighted recently here in the OFFG: GCHQ & co. Demanding brutal application of religious extremism and Fascism, to qualify nations like Indonesia for loans ..

    Control via credit or debts, as Adam Smith always suggested, way better than the sword and send in help to train local Fascists on how to terrorise the indigenous population.

    Like in the Ukraine, for example ..
    Great documentary link, by the way: that one on the Donbass & life today in Donetsk: the one with Russ Bentley from Austin Texas, slamming the Fascist Apartheid NATO powers that be & how NATO backed the Ukrainian Fascists, via their puppet Poroschenko.. just like NATO did on the Balkans, fanning the flames of Fascism, to create more divisions & Apartheid, in a multitude of sick ways, including withdrawing the UN Dutch forces , despite six calls for aircover, having to let Srebrenica just happen..

    Pre-meditated Genocide with full Mens Rea.. NATO’s Fascist Dictators should steer well clear of Donbass People’s Republic and it would appear that ALL NATO members could do with putting their own Fascist house in order first..

    Especially the USA !

    All US citizens should be obligated to watch that documentary on NYC to Donetsk, then read about Benghazi and Syria the real facts, not what is reported on Western censored Zionazi news corporations, which i think includes the BBC now, obviously, after reading about that Dimbleby Dogma from Panorama ..

    Funny how little idea anybody in the West seems to have about reality today. And I was a radio moderator, way back in Communist times, but we were better informed than the English footballer Danny Rose, who now thinks Russia is maybe ok for his family to visit.. lol, I thought black folk would understand the Western mind control..

    Talk about brainwashed and no idea what the hell is going on.. Trump has not drained the swamp, it would appear ..
    Work in progress? ! Sorry for digressing, but it all seems to be part and parcel of USA / NATO Foreign Policy as a whole entity, for generations propagating division in any way possible, says this sixty year old woman.

    Mens’ rea and realms of Fascism: although sometimes women do bite, admittedly,
    Be fair, it is largely Mens’ rea & intentions, in my experience .. Viva Donbass!
    To hell with the corrupted US constitutional fully fascist infested swamp land ..


Please note the opinions expressed in the comments do not necessarily reflect those of the editors or of OffG as a whole