Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional

All 11 accounts by the ARAB -ist, pro jihadists (repeating something about "paid"), created not far from each other. As pairs... reacting with "fake news", to the very same posts...and fast. As they're no newbies..


(Under most of his accounts he replies to theards "words that start with..." in order to 'upgrade' the account/s):


Among other accounts ...
 
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.


An Opinion behind a paywall?

I'll give you my opinion, and I won't even charge you for it: Your TDS has made you nuttier than a squirrel, bro.:laughing0301:
 
All 11 accounts by the ARAB -ist, pro jihadists (repeating something about "paid"), created not far from each other. As pairs... reacting with "fake news", to the very same posts...and fast. As they're no newbies..


(Under most of his accounts he replies to theards "words that start with..." in order to 'upgrade' the account/s):


Among other accounts ...
Be sure to add "J.S." ---->BANNED :) and Pure Comedy Gold ---->BANNED :)

:WooHooSmileyWave-vi:

check it out:

https://www.usmessageboard.com/members/zafira-cherry.91840/


:laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:
 
Last edited:
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.

.
You need to take a civics class.
 
You need to take a civics class.


Been there, they didn't provide t-shirts. Of course I took civics before the started putting the commie spin on it. What you folks always want to forget is this little phrase, " he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,". The president is the only person the Constitution charges with the enforcement of federal laws. All law enforcement power, for federal laws, is derived from him and him alone.

.
 
That is not what the phrase means.


So tell me, oh clueless one, who is charged by the Constitution with federal law enforcement. And then explain why ALL federal law enforcement agencies fall under the executive branch. Oh and last but not least, explain what you think that phrase means.

.
 
So tell me, oh clueless one, who is charged by the Constitution with federal law enforcement. And then explain why ALL federal law enforcement agencies fall under the executive branch. Oh and last but not least, explain what you think that phrase means.

.
Of course the DOJ is in charge of federal law enforcement. In order for the DOJ to function properly it must be able to operate INDEPENDENTLY.....free from any political influence of The POTUS.
 
Of course the DOJ is in charge of federal law enforcement. In order for the DOJ to function properly it must be able to operate INDEPENDENTLY.....free from any political influence of The POTUS.


Are you seriously saying the president has no authority to direct the priorities of federal law enforcement?

.
 
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.

Since I have you here
I would like to ask a question.
Chuck Schumer and Nancy pelosi said that President Trump was involved in a cover-up
and that his presidency was illegitimate.

Norah O'Donnell
said the night of the debate
that Donald Trump
is a convicted rapist.

Care to comment ?
Because the whole usmessageboard is watching.
 
Are you seriously saying the president has no authority to direct the priorities of federal law enforcement?

.
No, not what I am saying at all. A POTUS always needs to remember though that they have taken an oath to uphold and defend The Constitution of The United States. He or she should NEVER direct federal law enforcement to enact policies that are illegal....or even questionable.
Trump's policies are repeatedly being shut down by federal judges who obviously know the constitution better than he does. Instead of deferring to them he attacks them.
This is a violation of his oath....which would indicate he's not really competent or able to direct DOJ policy.
 
No, not what I am saying at all. A POTUS always needs to remember though that they have taken an oath to uphold and defend The Constitution of The United States. He or she should NEVER direct federal law enforcement to enact policies that are illegal....or even questionable.
Trump's policies are repeatedly being shut down by federal judges who obviously know the constitution better than he does. Instead of deferring to them he attacks them.
This is a violation of his oath....which would indicate he's not really competent or able to direct DOJ policy.
The Orange Man is trying to accomplish his political objectives and campaign promises.

Presidents get stopped from time-to-time by the Judicial Branch throughout our history.

I'll admit that the Orange Man gets stopped more often than most (or all?) of his predecessors.

But that's quite probably and simply because he is TRYING to do more then most of them.

We have 20,000,000 (or more) Illegal Aliens presently on US Soil that he is trying to eject.

That's gonna take some rather unprecedented and imaginative expediting and shortcuts that will pass legal scrutiny.

And all that expediting and all those shortcuts are gonna require some genuine trial and error before they hit on winners.

The Orange Man is merely throwing monkey-poo at the walls and seeing what sticks.

Not to worry... if the Alien Enemies Act cannot be made to serve he-and-his will find another loophole fast enough.

You're just looking at Round One here... so buckle-up and enjoy the ride.
 
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.

What's the difference ?
 
No, not what I am saying at all. A POTUS always needs to remember though that they have taken an oath to uphold and defend The Constitution of The United States. He or she should NEVER direct federal law enforcement to enact policies that are illegal....or even questionable.
Trump's policies are repeatedly being shut down by federal judges who obviously know the constitution better than he does. Instead of deferring to them he attacks them.
This is a violation of his oath....which would indicate he's not really competent or able to direct DOJ policy.


There are too many judges that ignore the law and the Constitution in favor of their politics, and exactly what direction has Trump given the DOJ you consider questionable?

.
 
There are too many judges that ignore the law and the Constitution in favor of their politics, and exactly what direction has Trump given the DOJ you consider questionable?

.
Don't play this stupid game with me.
It is not the judges who are ignoring the law it is Trump.
In answer to your second question, check the court cases Trump is appealing and has appealed.
Save your nattering cultish play dumb propaganda for someone else.
 
Don't play this stupid game with me.
It is not the judges who are ignoring the law it is Trump.
In answer to your second question, check the court cases Trump is appealing and has appealed.
Save your nattering cultish play dumb propaganda for someone else.


Funny, you didn't answer my question, curious. LMAO

.
 
It is not the judges who are ignoring the law it is Trump.
And that is the whole crux of the dispute, isn't it? Namely, whether Trump is breaking laws OR if we're seeing Judicial Overreach.

In some instances I'm perfectly willing to concede that Trump has pushed beyond his limits and was properly spanked.

In OTHER instances (like dealing with Illegal Aliens) I think we're looking at FAR more Judicial Overreach than good judgment.
 

Trump Has Gone From Unconstitutional to Anti-Constitutional …​

said the anti-American brain-damaged idiot author of the original post.​

 
Are you seriously saying the president has no authority to direct the priorities of federal law enforcement?

.
No one has absolute power in the US. It is one of the reasons America is such a great country. The fact that the federal government has three branches of equal power is another factor that makes US a strong nation.
 

New Topics

Back
Top Bottom