Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional

Donald Trump believes he is above the law. And people excuse and support this.

Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional​


Most of us know what it means for something to be unconstitutional. An unconstitutional act is one that violates some aspect of the Constitution as understood by the courts, although the public and its representatives are also free to make claims about the constitutionality of one act or another.

The courts have said, among other things, that racial segregation in public schools is unconstitutional; that unequal representation in state legislatures is unconstitutional; and that laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional. Moving to the present, we can say that President Trump’s order overturning birthright citizenship is, according to the plain text of the 14th Amendment, unconstitutional. There is also a strong argument that the president’s effort to remove transgender people from military service is, as a court ruled Tuesday night, unconstitutional.

You get the picture.

But there are other ways to evaluate the actions of a government. You can ask a somewhat different question: not whether an action is constitutional, but whether it sits opposed to constitutionalism itself. You can ask, in other words, whether it is anti-constitutional.

The project of constitutionalism, the historian Henry Steele Commager wrote, is the project of “government under law, by law, through law, in conformity with law.” It is, to borrow from John Locke, “to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it.” And in the American political tradition, it is the central principle that “governments are not omnipotent” but of “only limited authority.”

An anti-constitutional act is one that rejects the basic premises of constitutionalism. It rejects the premise that sovereignty lies with the people, that ours is a government of limited and enumerated powers and that the officers of that government are bound by law.

The new president has, in just the first two months of his second term, performed a number of illegal and unconstitutional acts. But the defining attribute of his administration thus far is its anti-constitutional orientation. Both of its most aggressive and far-reaching efforts — the impoundment of billions of dollars in congressionally authorized spending and the attempt to realize the president’s promise of mass deportation — rest on fundamentally anti-constitutional assertions of executive authority.

/---/ The 14th Amendment served to protect the children of free democRAT slaves. It's not for prego Mexicans to cross our border illegally and give birth so their kid will be a US citizen then bring the entire family here.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to:

Wikipedia+4

  • Protect the rights of native-born Black Americans and prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.
  • Extend liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.
  • Make it clear that everyone born in the United States, including former slaves, was a citizen.
  • Provide all citizens with “equal protection under the laws.”
 
/---/ The 14th Amendment served to protect the children of free democRAT slaves. It's not for prego Mexicans to cross our border illegally and give birth so their kid will be a US citizen then bring the entire family here.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was to:
Wikipedia+4
  • Protect the rights of native-born Black Americans and prevent state governments from denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States.
  • Extend liberties and rights granted by the Bill of Rights to formerly enslaved people.
  • Make it clear that everyone born in the United States, including former slaves, was a citizen.
  • Provide all citizens with “equal protection under the laws.”
The third bullet point shoots down your argument.
 
The president enforcing existing immigration laws is about as far from anti-constitutional as you can get. That is explicit executive authority. Also the executive branch spends the money authorized by congress but there's a certain amount is each executive agency the is discretionary and the president has the obligation to make sure that money is a manner the benefits the country and now wasted of frivolous crap. He has every authority to do so.

.
Trump has run roughshod over the 14th amendment. Both in his illegal violations of due process when enforcing immigration laws, and in his attempt to abolish birthright citizenship by fiat.
 
Trump has run roughshod over the 14th amendment. Both in his illegal violations of due process when enforcing immigration laws, and in his attempt to abolish birthright citizenship by fiat.


If an illegal has a final order of removal, they don't get another bite at the apple. Also it remains to be seen how a modern court will decide on birthright citizenship, is it a suicide pact or not?

.
 
If an illegal has a final order of removal, they don't get another bite at the apple. Also it remains to be seen how a modern court will decide on birthright citizenship, is it a suicide pact or not?

.
Trump doesn't get to override the Constitution by fiat.

He is not a King. We don't like Kings. We rebelled against a King.

If he doesn't like the 14th Amendment, there is a Constitutional process for repealing it.

But we have NEVER amended the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights.

Because we are America.
 
Immigrants, legal or otherwise, are not destroying our country. Nor will they.

Xenophobia will.

It is profoundly short-sighted thinking. Just like it was the last time we had a Know Nothing party.
 
Trump doesn't get to override the Constitution by fiat.

He is not a King. We don't like Kings. We rebelled against a King.

If he doesn't like the 14th Amendment, there is a Constitutional process for repealing it.

But we have NEVER amended the Constitution to TAKE AWAY rights.

Because we are America.


The amendment process is basically null and void. It's only takes 13 States to stop any proposed amendments, and you know full well, the commiecrats would stop any reasonable proposals.

.
 
It refers to anyone born in the US.
/---/ It was passed to ensure freed democRAT slaves were full citizens. Illegals pouring over the border to give birth here wasn't an issue in the 19th century. You clowns perverted it.
 
It’s what the amendment says.
/----/ Okay, and the 2nd says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Yet you libs try and say it only applies to the militia, then regulate them, demand licenses to own them, restrict their use, and ban guns you think are big and scary.
Care to explain the hypocrisy?
 
/----/ Okay, and the 2nd says, “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Yet you libs try and say it only applies to the militia, then regulate them, demand licenses to own them, restrict their use, and ban guns you think are big and scary.
Care to explain the hypocrisy?
The people’s rights have not been infringed. A person’s right may be taken away, however. The second amendment isn’t a suicide pack and we have every right to protect ourselves from bad actors.
 
Back
Top Bottom