PDA

View Full Version : Donald Trump’s Constitutional Ignorance




CPUd
06-27-2016, 11:39 AM
Donald Trump’s Constitutional Ignorance

Donald Trump, who launched an improbable bid for the Republican nomination for president, has defeated conventional wisdom and captured the nomination, barring some anomaly at the Republican Party’s July nominating convention in Cleveland.

His opponent, presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, remains the last obstacle impeding the completion of Trump’s rather unprecedented feat. But can Donald Trump faithfully execute the duties of the office of president?
“Trump either disdains the principles enshrined in the United States Constitution or pretends the document does not exist altogether.”

Merely observing Trump’s rhetoric over the course of his campaign, as well as his entire public life, which spans several decades, indicates that Trump either disdains the principles enshrined in the United States Constitution or pretends the document does not exist altogether.

Given the volume of material with which we are presented when we examine Trump’s posturing toward important constitutional issues, it is convenient to break down the Constitution into its basic components and enumerate the instances during which Trump has expressed opposition to the enumerated principle or power.

Let’s begin with the Bill of Rights…

The First Amendment is perhaps the area of the Constitution to which Trump has failed most profoundly to illustrate any attention or regard.

The amendment lists five particular clauses:

“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.”

Trump immediately encounters trouble when his policies are considered under the latter portion of the first clause: free exercise. Perhaps the epitome of this was when Trump failed to rule out immediately a requirement that would compel Muslim-Americans to carry around a special identification card or be entered into a national database. His policies continued to clash with religious free exercise when he proposed instituting a surveillance program specifically for mosques and proposed a policy to put a hold on Muslim immigration, which also implicates the due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution.

Next, Trump repeatedly boasts of his disdain for the freedom of speech, which he often assails in conjunction with the freedom of the press. For instance, he called for the government to “close up” parts of the Internet. Further, Trump has revoked the press credentials of a number of press organizations that have published articles in criticism of him. He criticized Pamela Geller for her “Draw Muhammad” contest that drew violent reactions from radical Muslims, whose attempts to attack the event were met with armed resistance.

Trump also criticized the French publication Charlie Hebdo for publishing controversial editions featuring a comic in derision of Muhammad; the issuing of this edition prompted violence from radical Muslims, who attacked the magazine’s headquarters and killed a number of staff members. Finally, Trump attacks free press when he offers his plan to “open up libel laws” so that he can punish and sue members of the press who write “negative” articles about him.
Next, the Second Amendment protects the right of Americans to keep and bear arms:

“A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Of course, controversy exists surrounding whether or not this clause applies to the individual, but the Supreme Court held in its decision D.C. v. Heller that the right to bear arms at home for self-defense is indeed an individual right. Nonetheless, Trump has openly asserted his distaste for guns, and he regularly disdained the right to bear arms for several years; this disdain continues.

When Donald Trump ran for president on the Reform Party ticket in 2000, he authored his political manifesto, a document that revealed Trump’s desire to ban assault weapons and institute longer waiting periods to obtain a firearm. Additionally, in an interview with Chris Matthews, Trump openly declared, “I hate the concept of guns.” While he affirmed his tenuous belief that “you have the right to have a gun,” his other statements lend credence to the assertion that he believes in a segmented, controlled Second Amendment.

And Donald Trump’s latest display of constitutional ignorance involves the Second Amendment: Trump, following the mass shooting at an Orlando gay night club, came out in support of preventing individuals placed on a terror watch list from purchasing a firearm. Indeed, this relates to both the Second and Fifth Amendments; a clause in the Fifth Amendment reads, “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.” This is echoed on a state level in the Fourteenth Amendment. Of course, to be placed on a list that denies individuals of the liberty to own firearms without any recourse or due process seems an obvious violation of these constitutional rights; however, Trump offers little heed.

To date, Donald Trump hasn’t openly opposed the Third Amendment.

On the Fourth Amendment, Donald Trump fails consistently as well.

The Amendment reads, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, paper, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” As previously mentioned, Donald Trump has proposed increasing surveillance on mosques, which, absent a warrant (as the NSA generally operates), clashes with the Fourth Amendment. In addition, Donald Trump backed bulk collection of phone records without warrant: when asked whether he would support restoring provisions of the PATRIOT Act that authorized such collection, he replied, “As far as I am concerned, that would be fine.” He added in an interview with Hugh Hewitt, “I tend to err on the side of security, I must tell you.”

The Fifth Amendment presents problems with Trump, as well.

It contains five clauses: presentment before a jury; due process; eminent domain; double jeopardy; and witness against the self. As I mentioned earlier, Trump’s recently adopted position on terror watch lists constitutes a violation of due process, but his Fifth Amendment woes do not end there.

As has been widely reported, Donald Trump loves to abuse eminent domain. He attempted to use the power and force of government to force an elderly widow from her home in order to build a parking lot for limousines. He later applauded the Kelo decision by the Supreme Court that authorized the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another so long as it furthered “economic development.”

On Amendments Six and Seven, Donald Trump has not yet taken open positions in contravention of them, and the same applies to the Eighth and Ninth.
On the Tenth, however, Trump again runs into issues.

Recently, he was asked which duties are among the most important for the federal government. He replied by listing three, two of which were healthcare and education. Indeed, the principal complaint of conservatives regarding education is that federal education standards operate in violation of the Tenth Amendment because the federal government was not granted by the Constitution the ability to regulate education; thus, according to the Tenth Amendment, the responsibility remains with the states. As a result, Trump’s remarks on the matter should invoke skepticism toward Donald’s knowledge of the federalist division of powers that characterizes the American system.

Trump’s constitutional ignorance transcends the Bill of Rights, though. He consistently praises an executive strongman in contravention of the interplay between the First and Second Articles of the Constitution. When Donald was asked whether or not he would continue to abuse executive orders in order to enact legislation, a congressional function according to the Constitution, he answered, “I won’t refuse it. I’m going to do a lot of things.” Trump also praised Russian authoritarian Vladimir Putin and the response the Chinese instituted during the Tiananmen Square episode during which Chinese students protested their tyrannical government, the result of which was a violent quashing by the Chinese government.

As it stands, the oath to the presidency requires the president-elect to affirm that he will protect and defend the Constitution, but given Trump’s remarks on important constitutional matters, it seems that he is both unfit and unprepared to truthfully make these statements.

http://outsetmagazine.com/2016/06/27/donald-trumps-constitutional-ignorance/

Brian4Liberty
06-27-2016, 12:38 PM
Trump's favorite book is the Constitution! Well, maybe he likes the Bible better. But Trump really likes the Two Amendment, so maybe we get to keep our guns and bibles!

Ronin Truth
06-27-2016, 12:48 PM
Gee, that probably puts him right in line with most of the rest of the Federal government employees.

Peace&Freedom
06-27-2016, 02:27 PM
http://outsetmagazine.com/2016/06/27/donald-trumps-constitutional-ignorance/

Perhaps Trump's loose cannon political personality represents an ugly mirror we don't want to look at. He shows America what it has come to in terms of Constitutional compliance. He merely flouts the wrong attitude and tendencies plainly, with less facile lip service to constitutional literacy. The truth is, too many folks across the board---left, right, authoritarian, and libertarian---are selective in following the constitution. "Oh, we'll stress obeying the original intent of the document when it comes to insisting on a declaration of war, but not when it comes to that pesky 'birther' insistence on the natural born citizen requirement for occupying the White House."

Or, "we'll accept the 'common sense' gun control argument to cave on background checks, and the hundreds of other current laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, but will declare any more infringements as unconstitutional." Exactly how do people justify exceptions A, B, and C, yet think they then have standing to object to proposed exceptions X, Y, or Z? When we understand our ala carte constitutionalism is the heart of the problem, we will be in a position to dump on Trump for openly, and without varnish, expressing the same selective or oblivious attitude. In the meanwhile, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

invisible
06-27-2016, 09:08 PM
Perhaps Trump's loose cannon political personality represents an ugly mirror we don't want to look at. He shows America what it has come to in terms of Constitutional compliance. He merely flouts the wrong attitude and tendencies plainly, with less facile lip service to constitutional literacy. The truth is, too many folks across the board---left, right, authoritarian, and libertarian---are selective in following the constitution. "Oh, we'll stress obeying the original intent of the document when it comes to insisting on a declaration of war, but not when it comes to that pesky 'birther' insistence on the natural born citizen requirement for occupying the White House."

Or, "we'll accept the 'common sense' gun control argument to cave on background checks, and the hundreds of other current laws infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, but will declare any more infringements as unconstitutional." Exactly how do people justify exceptions A, B, and C, yet think they then have standing to object to proposed exceptions X, Y, or Z? When we understand our ala carte constitutionalism is the heart of the problem, we will be in a position to dump on Trump for openly, and without varnish, expressing the same selective or oblivious attitude. In the meanwhile, we have met the enemy, and he is us.

Wow, what a statement! Here, on Ron Paul Forums, we only selectively care about bits and pieces of the Constitution, and therefore are in no position to dump on trump? Seriously? This statement is highly insulting to any real supporter of Ron Paul, and to the many RPF members who have made a point here for years that the entire Constitution needs to be followed. Perhaps you are only speaking about yourself, and your fellow trumpettes. You sure aren't speaking about me.

enhanced_deficit
06-27-2016, 11:03 PM
Trump is on even more shaky grounds relatively.. his opponent has been endorsed by a world reknowned Constitutional Liar Lawyer:

Obama endorses Hillary (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497191-Obama-endorses-Hillary&)

LibertyEagle
06-28-2016, 12:53 AM
Wow, what a statement! Here, on Ron Paul Forums, we only selectively care about bits and pieces of the Constitution, and therefore are in no position to dump on trump? Seriously? This statement is highly insulting to any real supporter of Ron Paul, and to the many RPF members who have made a point here for years that the entire Constitution needs to be followed. Perhaps you are only speaking about yourself, and your fellow trumpettes. You sure aren't speaking about me.

Actually, very few do that anymore around here. Many of the more prolific posters hate the Constitution and in fact, cannot wait for the country to fall. Naively believing that they will be allowed to raise it from the ashes into their anarchical wet dream. :rolleyes:

cajuncocoa
06-28-2016, 06:41 AM
Actually, very few do that anymore around here. Many of the more prolific posters hate the Constitution and in fact, cannot wait for the country to fall. Naively believing that they will be allowed to raise it from the ashes into their anarchical wet dream. :rolleyes:
The only thing you care about lately is making sure Mexicans can't cross that border. If YOU cared about the Constitution, you'd take Ron's advice and run far away from Donald Trump.

AZJoe
06-28-2016, 06:48 AM
Puts him as a distant second to Hillary's Constitutional Ignorance, and in fact Hitlary's contempt for the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

CaptUSA
06-28-2016, 07:09 AM
Puts him as a distant second to Hillary's Constitutional Ignorance, and in fact Hitlary's contempt for the Bill of Rights and Constitution.

Understand this: Hillary's faults should not be an endorsement of Trump.

Conversely, Trump's faults should not be construed as an endorsement of Hillary.

If you make either one of those mistakes, then you are part of the problem.

AZJoe
06-28-2016, 07:24 AM
Understand this: Hillary's faults should not be an endorsement of Trump.

Conversely, Trump's faults should not be construed as an endorsement of Hillary.

If you make either one of those mistakes, then you are part of the problem.

Absolutely correct Capt!
I see so much hysterics over Trump, but virtual silence or free pass over Hillary's going on by comparison to Trump hysterics.
They both lack understanding of the concept of liberty, yet Hillary's misgivings, threats and dangers are 100 times greater. If you are going to get hysterical, might as well get hysterical over both threats, or at least give the greater threat its fair due.

CaptUSA
06-28-2016, 07:27 AM
at least give the greater threat its fair due.

There is no "greater" threat. That would imply there is a "lesser".

You either side with tyranny or with liberty. Trump and Clinton both fall into the former category. It's a crap shoot as to which one would be more "successful" in implementing their form of tyranny.


(I think why you don't see as much Hillary "hysterics" is because there's no one in these forums endorsing her. That mistake seems to be reserved for the Trump backers.)

cajuncocoa
06-28-2016, 07:43 AM
Understand this: Hillary's faults should not be an endorsement of Trump.

Conversely, Trump's faults should not be construed as an endorsement of Hillary.

If you make either one of those mistakes, then you are part of the problem.I'm making this part of my sig line...it's too good not to.

LibertyEagle
06-28-2016, 07:52 AM
The only thing you care about lately is making sure Mexicans can't cross that border. If YOU cared about the Constitution, you'd take Ron's advice and run far away from Donald Trump.

I am taking the advice he gave for years and years. I am standing against world government, including the tactics being used to take us there (including the overrun of our borders by people who have no interest in assimilating into our culture, who want to suck off the government teat, favor big government, and who largely have IQs far less than Americans born here), and horrible trade deals that have contributed greatly to entire industries and countless jobs being obliterated from our country.

LibertyEagle
06-28-2016, 07:57 AM
There is no "greater" threat. That would imply there is a "lesser".

You either side with tyranny or with liberty. Trump and Clinton both fall into the former category. It's a crap shoot as to which one would be more "successful" in implementing their form of tyranny.

(I think why you don't see as much Hillary "hysterics" is because there's no one in these forums endorsing her. That mistake seems to be reserved for the Trump backers.)

I notice you didn't mention Johnson. Interesting. Why is that exactly?

I do agree with you that it is about tyranny or liberty. That is exactly why I am voting for TRUMP.

Only a dumbass or a traitor would support a candidate who is for open borders, the Trans Pacific Partnership, "multiculturalism", or any other globalist clap trap.

AZJoe
06-28-2016, 07:57 AM
There is no "greater" threat. That would imply there is a "lesser".
You either side with tyranny or with liberty. Trump and Clinton both fall into the former category. It's a crap shoot as to which one would be more "successful" in implementing their form of tyranny.
(I think why you don't see as much Hillary "hysterics" is because there's no one in these forums endorsing her. That mistake seems to be reserved for the Trump backers.)

There is indeed a greater threat, but don't mistake that as an endorsement of the lesser evil.
Hillary equals not only continuation of the war and regime change faction, but its exponential escalation. It means the Kagan family runs foreign policy, runs the Department of State and runs the world into war. See Ron Paul Institute: http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/neocon-watch/2016/may/23/the-dreadful-kagan-clan-hillary-s-warmongers-in-waiting/
It means the very real threat of use of nuclear weapons and nuclear war.

Its like comparing a broken bone to being burned alive. Neither is a favorable option but one indeed is worse.
Ronin Truth posted a nice article comparing the election choice to the choice Russian's had between the Czar's white army and the Bolsheviks Red Army. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?497121-Ex-Soviet-Economist-on-Comrade-Hillary&highlight=czar+trump
Under the Czar meant oppression, imprisonment of a few, stagnated economy. Under the Bolsheviks meant the extermination of 49 million lives and the impoverishment of hundreds of millions. Hillary represents that threat, and that threat deserves to be exposed.

The Rebel Poet
06-28-2016, 08:39 AM
https://i.imgflip.com/1638j5.jpg

cajuncocoa
06-28-2016, 09:46 AM
I notice you didn't mention Johnson. Interesting. Why is that exactly?

I do agree with you that it is about tyranny or liberty. That is exactly why I am voting for TRUMP.

Only a dumbass or a traitor would support a candidate who is for open borders, the Trans Pacific Partnership, "multiculturalism", or any other globalist clap trap.
Because there's the chance of an ice cube in hell that Johnson will be elected POTUS in November? Maybe that's why?

cajuncocoa
06-28-2016, 09:48 AM
I am taking the advice he gave for years and years. I am standing against world government, including the tactics being used to take us there (including the overrun of our borders by people who have no interest in assimilating into our culture, who want to suck off the government teat, favor big government, and who largely have IQs far less than Americans born here), and horrible trade deals that have contributed greatly to entire industries and countless jobs being obliterated from our country.
Why don't you take the advice he's giving now? Dr. Paul says Trump would be very bad for this country in spite of the threat of world government (we've heard that threat forever)...there are other bad things that could happen. You should listen to more recent things Dr. Paul is saying....it's important.

The Rebel Poet
06-28-2016, 10:19 AM
Why don't you take the advice he's giving now? Dr. Paul says Trump would be very bad for this country in spite of the threat of world government (we've heard that threat forever)...there are other bad things that could happen. You should listen to more recent things Dr. Paul is saying....it's important.
Please stop feeding the trolls. Trumptards are incapable of learning. Any rational point of view is shot down with "muh borders!" Trumptards generally agree that Mexican immigration is a bigger threat to our liberty than the NSA, federal takeovers of everything, the FED, crony-capitalists etc. combined. You can't fix such confused priorities by saying "but Ron Paul." They would have to stop being afraid of the bogeyman El Coco.

cajuncocoa
06-28-2016, 10:37 AM
Please stop feeding the trolls.
*sigh* So many of them around lately...