Does winning an election override the Constitution?

[Rawley]

I'm saying that's what the law was under Clinton. Has congress changed it?

Yup. Several times

 

[BULLDOG]

You're out of your league.

You can't gaslight America anymore, leftard. We're on to your bullshit.

Your opinion will be given all the consideration it deserves.

 

[Man With A Plan]

The constitution and laws still apply no matter how many voted for who.

Would those be the same laws that you on the left blatantly ignored while you opened our border and let millions of unvetted illegals into the country?

 

[BULLDOG]

I just gave you one you lying twat.

I guess I missed that one. Which post?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Already posted several times. Article 3 section 1.

Section 1​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

How does that give the Supreme court the power to interpret the Constitution?

How, any more than:

Article II Executive Branch​

• Section 1 Function and Selection​

  
  
  • Clause 1 President's Role
  • The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Gives it to the President?

You're really posted that several times as an argument that the USSC determines the meaning of the Constitution? I'm glad to have cleared that up for you.

 

[BULLDOG]

Well, the law was changed in 2004 2011, 2017 and 2022. Please keep up

link?

 

[scruffy]

Show where my remarks are wrong?

Here, lazy libtard.

Don't say I never gave you nothin

Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[BULLDOG]

Section 1​

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

How does that give the Supreme court the power to interpret the Constitution?

How, any more than:

Article II Executive Branch​

• Section 1 Function and Selection​

  
  
  • Clause 1 President's Role
  • The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows

Gives it to the President?

You're really posted that several times as an argument that the USSC determines the meaning of the Constitution? I'm glad to have cleared that up for you.

You're an idiot, but thanks for trying..
If you can't see that the SC is charged with interpreting the constitution. I can't help you.

• ArtIII.S1.4 Inherent Powers of Federal Courts
  • ArtIII.S1.4.1 Overview of Inherent Powers of Federal Courts
  • ArtIII.S1.4.2 Inherent Powers Over Judicial Procedure
  • ArtIII.S1.4.3 Inherent Powers Over Contempt and Sanctions
  • ArtIII.S1.4.4 Inherent Power to Issue Judgments

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

This is a valid question given that trump and his supporters claim he was elected to deport people, and that judges who rule against him are wrong because the people elected trump. They have gone so far as to call judges communists simply for ruling against trump.
Does trump's election override the constitution and the courts?

This is the type of response you get when you tell AI what you really think but ask for a more "palatable" response:

"How much of the U.S. population could be said to be "uninformed". I really want to say stupid but that's not what I'm trying to do.

A person is making the argument that "the people" elected Trump to deport people, therefore judges who are not allowing him to do so are "the problem". My initial response was "well people are stupid" but what I'm trying to ask is whether it is really farfetched to claim that half the population of the United States is not very well informed or smart?

Response:​

You’re asking an important—and emotionally loaded—question, and it’s worth breaking down carefully, especially since your instincts seem to be more about information literacy than raw intelligence.

---

Let’s reframe the issue:​

You're not necessarily saying half the U.S. is "stupid." What you’re trying to get at is:

“Is it reasonable to say that a significant portion of the U.S. population lacks sufficient information, understanding, or critical thinking ability to accurately evaluate complex political or legal claims?”

Answer: Yes, it’s absolutely reasonable. And there’s data to support it.

---

What the data shows:​

1. Civic Knowledge Gaps Are Real
   • In a 2022 Annenberg Public Policy Centersurvey:
     • Only 47% of Americans could name all three branches of government (up from 26% in 2016, but still low).
     • About 25% could not name a single branch.
2. Basic Constitutional Misunderstandings
   • Many Americans do not understand the role of judges (e.g., judicial review, constitutional limits, or independence).
   • People frequently believe that courts should “follow the will of the people,” even when that contradicts constitutional protections.
3. Media Literacy & Misinformation
   • A 2019 Stanford study found that over 80% of high school students couldn’t distinguish between news articles and sponsored content.
   • Misinformation spreads faster than corrections, especially when framed emotionally (Pew, MIT).
4. Science & Critical Thinking Deficits
   • Belief in conspiracy theories remains high—e.g., ~25% of Americans believe COVID-19 was deliberately planned.
   • Basic statistics, reasoning, and logic are not well taught — and not widely internalized.

---

So is it "stupid"?​

Not exactly. It’s more accurate—and much more useful—to think in terms of:

• Uninformed (lacks facts or context)
• Misinformed (believes wrong or distorted facts)
• Underdeveloped reasoning skills (not practiced in questioning sources, recognizing bias, etc.)

In other words: yes, a large portion of the population is not equipped to reason critically about complex democratic structures, legal principles, or factual disputes. That’s not a moral judgment—it’s a reflection of our national education system, media environment, and tribal political culture.

---

Reframing Your Response (Optional Suggestion)​

If you want to express this more precisely and avoid sounding dismissive (even if you’re frustrated), you could say something like:

“I think the real problem is that a large portion of the population isn't deeply informed about how constitutional limits work. Judges aren’t supposed to follow public opinion—they’re supposed to apply the law, even when that’s unpopular. If we had stronger civic education in this country, this kind of debate might look very different.”

PART II: If we had stronger civic education in this country

Trumpism and the Rejection of Education​

1. For many supporters, formal education (especially from elite institutions) is portrayed as:​

• A sign of arrogance or out-of-touch liberalism
• A threat to "common sense" values and lived experience
• A tool of indoctrination, not enlightenment

“We love the uneducated.” — Donald Trump, 2016
This wasn’t a joke. It was a strategic embrace of populism that defined being "smart" not by knowledge, but by loyalty and cultural identity.

---

2. Trump's administration tried to:​

• Slash funding to public education and eliminate the Department altogether (repeated budget proposals)
• Push charter schools and vouchers, often at the expense of public education
• Appoint Betsy DeVos, a vocal critic of public schools, as Secretary of Education — signaling an effort to dismantle, not reform

---

3.​

• Trump repeatedly attacked elite institutions like Harvard as being:
  
  • "Radical left"
  • “Woke” and anti-American
• Efforts to restrict international student visas and attacks on academic freedom were part of a larger pattern
• Lawsuits and political pressure were used to delegitimize institutions seen as ideological adversaries

---

Why This Matters​

Your instinct is dead-on: when education is demonized, it becomes much harder for a society to function based on shared facts or informed debate.

And when judges or scholars are seen not as arbiters of law or knowledge but as "obstacles to the will of the people" — we’re no longer talking about democracy, we’re talking about mob rule or authoritarian populism.

---

How You Might Say It (if you’re pushing back in conversation):​

“This isn’t just about immigration or judges — it’s about whether we value facts, law, and expertise at all. When education is treated like a threat, and when legal checks are called sabotage, that’s not democracy. That’s just power grabbing, dressed up as populism.”

 

[Rawley]

link?

8 CFR § 235.3 - Inadmissible aliens and expedited removal.

www.law.cornell.edu

ii) As specifically designated by the Commissioner, aliens who arrive in, attempt to enter, or have entered the United States without having been admitted or paroled following inspection by an immigration officer at a designated port-of-entry, and who have not established to the satisfaction of the immigration officer that they have been physically present in the United States continuously for the 2-year period immediately prior to the date of determination of inadmissibility

 

[westwall]

I guess I missed that one. Which post?

The millions of imported illegals, you dope.

 

[westwall]

It also says everyone is entitled to due process.

They've already had it.

 

[elektra]

This is a valid question given that trump and his supporters claim he was elected to deport people, and that judges who rule against him are wrong because the people elected trump. They have gone so far as to call judges communists simply for ruling against trump.
Does trump's election override the constitution and the courts?

Democrats say so and do so, democrats rule over us with a complete disregard for the rule of law

 

[scruffy]

Democrats say so and do so, democrats rule over us with a complete disregard for the rule of law

People like Bulldog get these talking points from DU or the DNC or wherever they get them from - and they still haven't figured out that DEMOCRATS LIE. They just regurgitate the talking points without even vetting them, just like all those unvetted illegal aliens they let in.

Then when they get called on their ignorant bullshit they just drop the ball and walk away. Rinse and repeat. This is why Democrats have lost all credibility. Everyone EXPECTS them to lie now. And sure enough, they prove it every time.

 

[IM2]

This is a valid question given that trump and his supporters claim he was elected to deport people, and that judges who rule against him are wrong because the people elected trump. They have gone so far as to call judges communists simply for ruling against trump.
Does trump's election override the constitution and the courts?

No.

 

[BULLDOG]

They've already had it.

Judges seem to disagree.

 

[westwall]

Judges seem to disagree.

Hacktavist judges you meant to say. No worries. They will be over ruled, and if they keep up the billshit their courts will be eliminated.

 

[BULLDOG]

Hacktavist judges you meant to say. No worries. They will be over ruled, and if they keep up the billshit their courts will be eliminated.

That's the way trump wants to do it. Get rid of all judges that don't rule the way he wants. That's a dictator.

 

[scruffy]

That's the way trump wants to do it. Get rid of all judges that don't rule the way he wants. That's a dictator.

You're whining.

We've established that the legalities you cited about Clinton's law were false. Your use of the word "illegal" was an outright lie.

We've also established that many of the judges that issue "orders" don't even know the law. Thus they have no credibility.

So this entire thread amounts to nothing more than a heap of leftard whining.

Tell you what - go tell your sources to give you better talking points. Dems need to start rebuilding their credibility if they want to win elections.

If they (you) keep going the way they're going, people are just going to laugh at them (you).

 

[Mac1958]

Does trump's election override the constitution and the courts?

Yes. They think they're "at war". That's what the voices they trust tell them, 24/7/365.

Remember finding out that Al Qaeda was "at war" with America on 9/11? Most of us didn't even know it.

They're at war. Anything goes. Including the Constitution, if that's what it takes to win their war.