Skip Navigation
politics @lemmy.world
MuskyMelon @lemmy.world

Trump says 'I don't know' when asked if he must uphold the Constitution

www.usatoday.com

Trump says 'I don't know' when asked if he must uphold the Constitution

Doesn't even know the presidential oath he pledged.

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

196 comments

  • Turns out as long as they have ( R ) next to their name, the president can operate with all the integrity of a five year old trying to get out of cleaning their room

  • If this comment doesn't make the case for impeachment idk what does

    Upholding the constitution is the most basic part of the job.

    If he "doesn't know" if he can do that he is unfit for the position and should be removed immediately. Not even counting all the other violations of the constitution his administration has committed in just the first 100 days alone

    • You swear on it when you take the Oath Of Office.

       
          
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

      However,

       
          
The Constitution provides no standards for determining whether a President has violated their oath. The fact that other branches interpret the Constitution, and may do do inconsistently with the President, creates difficulties in determining whether the oath has been violated. Just as some Presidents have suggested that the oath may require them to disregard laws when doing so is necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, some lawmakers have argued that the President’s oath requires them to execute all laws, regardless of whether the President believes them to be constitutional.

The Supreme Court has not addressed these competing views, and the oath and its surrounding text do not suggest that questions about violations of the oath were intended for judicial resolution. The Court has held that the President is generally immune from civil or criminal liability for official actions taken while in office, which may impede judicial resolution of questions relating to a President’s violation of their oath arising during the President’s tenure. The Constitution’s justiciability requirements are another potential obstacle to resolution in federal court.

Impeachment provides a vehicle by which Congress may adjudicate a President’s alleged violation of their oath. Articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson charged the President with being unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office. Draft articles of impeachment to be used against President Richard Nixon alleged that President Nixon violated his oath, though he resigned before these articles were adopted.  Articles of impeachment adopted in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton charged the President with violating his constitutional oath, as did articles of impeachment adopted in both impeachments of President Donald Trump.

The political process provides another check on the President’s violation of their oath. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton suggested in various contexts that political accountability might help ensure the President’s fidelity to their office. In his second inaugural speech, George Washington observed that violating his oath would invite the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

      https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1-5/ALDE_00013936/

  • You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

    Yes. Yes it does. And there are plenty of them who want more of this.

    And I don't even blame the MAGA morons any more. I blame the "progressive" Democrats and so-called "independents" who decided to stay home in November and allow Trump to return to power because Kamala Harris had the audacity to commit sins like running for President while being a black woman, campaigning with Liz Cheney that one time, and not being left enough for their liking, so obviously the only reasonable thing to do was to let Trump return to power.

    How's that working out for y'all, you fucking chodes?

    • I've been saying this for a long time.

      The people who stayed home or voted third party are still trying to blame Dems for this, because the Dems didn't try hard enough and "didn't inspire them".

      Yeah? Well if you need a politician to inspire you to show up and fill out a piece of paper that will help protect marginalized groups, then you're a piece of shit.

      I'm not a Dem. Never will be. But I understood what was on the line.

      Gaza is gonna get glassed, my gay and trans loved ones are in immediate danger, among God knows how much more heinous shit is going down.

      They said they were gonna do this. And a huge group of people who wanted to be seen as morally pure decided to sit it out to feel superior.

      You're not superior. You're a monster. The Dems shouldn't have to "inspire" you to stop a fascist regime. It's American exceptionalism at it's fucking worst.

      Fuck ALL of them. All of em.

    • We can blame the MAGA crowd, too. There's enough blame to go around. We can also blame the strategists who killed the momentum that Harris/Walz had.

      • But you know why I blame the "progressive" Democrats and "independents" more?

        Everybody knew that the MAGA crowd was going to MAGA.
        Everybody knew that the strategists were going to stick to the same old playbook.

        And you know what else everybody knew?

        Everybody knew that in this election, not voting for Harris was a de-facto vote for Trump. Everybody knew that whatever your position was on any given topic, Trump's position was an exponentially worse option.
        Everybody knew that even under the best of circumstances, this was going to come down to the wire.

        These people knew it. They knew how important their vote was, and they stayed home anyway. And they still infect this very community with their constant excuses for blaming everybody else for their own choices because Kamala Harris wasn't the perfect candidate.

        "She wasn't a supporter of Gaza." First, let's remember the fact that the Jewish voters in this country exponentially outnumber Palestinians multiple times over, and if she had spoke out against Israel and it cost her even 10% of the Jewish vote, she'd still have lost even more votes than she would have gained from Gaza supporters. And second, if the people of Gaza are supposed to be your primary concern, how is allowing a man who was openly campaigning on amping up the genocide, annexing the land, and turning it into beachfront property any better for them? Or the university students in this country who are now being deported for supporting them?

        "She campaigned with Liz Cheney one time." So fucking what? Liz Cheney wasn't running for re-election. None of Liz Cheney's policies were on any ballots. This was a woman who, much as I disagree with her on 99.99999999% of policy issues, still sacrificed her career to try to hold Trump to account. Conveniently, of all the dozens of Republicans who endorsed and even campaigned with Harris, she is the one everybody gets all up in arms about. Gee, I wonder what separates her from all of the Republican guys that also endorsed Harris? And even without that.......everybody gets mad because Harris campaigned with someone who formerly supported Trump. But how in the name of holy fuck does it make sense to retaliate by allowing Trump to return to power? "I'm so fucking mad that a former Trump supporter endorsed her that I'm going to let Trump return to power! That'll show 'em!".

        "She wasn't far enough to the left on

        <whatever issue>

        ". Ok. Again, so fucking what? How does allowing our government to be controlled by a far-right trifecta that is campaigning on dismantling the very progressive programs you're supposed to support help that in any way, shape, or form?

        The lot of them decided that the remedy to not shooting themselves in the foot was to point the gun at their own head instead.

        And I've said it before and I still believe it: The people who fall into this category I believe are closeted racists who either low-key support Trump's immigration policies, didn't want to vote for a black woman, or both, and are just using one of the above flimsy arguments to justify their choice rather than admit it.

      • It's not the Dems fault that so many people didn't give a shit about marginalized groups.

    • She was the second shittiest candidate, but in a two horse race, why would anyone choose otherwise? Baffling.

    • Don't forget calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Gaza virtue signallers really hated that.

  • Sounds like yet another high crime and misdemeanor. Why doesn't the co-equal branch established in Article I do it's duty? And failing that, why doesn't Hegseth, who has "We the People" tattooed on his drunken forearm, have the courage that he demands of others to tell off his boss? Where are the Oath Keepers who say they are so opposed to a tyrannical government and take their oaths to the Constitution seriously?

    They wipe their collective asses with the Constitution. For that, everyone in this administration, and those who enabled it should burn as the traitors that they are.

  • He doesn't need to if no one holds him accountable. He should need to, legally, but, in the current environment, he doesn't.

  • The answer is clearly "no." He's been doing unconstitutional shit since day 1, and nobody has stopped him.

196 comments