Donald Trump and the U.S. Constitution

Post Reply New Topic

Scholars are concerned that Donald Trump could trash the Constitution while in office; this isn't just liberals talking, but also conservatives, like one at Volokh Conspiracy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/04/us/po ... .html?_r=0

It's funny that Republicans endorsing Trump have to say that if Trump is elected, his staff would keep him from trashing the Constitution. Also, what's with that jab at Romania, Mr. McCain?

I feel like Trump, very soon, will put in foot in his mouth one too many times.

The man's a walking time bomb of stupidity.

This is rich considering how the last 2 administrations have completely wiped their arse with the constitution

Neoconservative talking about the constitution at all is the most disingenuous dishonest things I think of

My favorite comment on Trump and the US Constitution actually came from someone on the Volokh Conspiracy, which is that he probably thinks it's a yacht.

That being said, I'll still take his SCOTUS picks over Hillary's any day.

Trump will be the most constitutional conservative president we've had in a very long time.

Oh no, NY Communist Times is bad mouthing Trump.

Eugene Volokh is employed at UCLA. His cohort, David Kopel, at The Volokh Conspiracy (now, part of The Washington Post media family) is a former assistant attorney general of Colorado who still hosts his annual ATF (alcohol, tobacco and firearms) celebrations there. I have communicated with both men over the years and knew them, apart from their political affiliations, to be much more constitutionalist libertarians than conservative Republicans. They touted my work in creating one of the largest LGBT Second Amendment groups in the world ... hardly something that conservative Republicans do. In fact, with all their affiliations mentioned herein (UCLA; The Washington Post; alcohol, tobacco and firearms celebrations; and LGBT firearm groups), could they truly be so conservative or Republican?

No, it would seem more likely that they support Anybody But Hillary.

The specific concerns raised in the article, such as Trump wanting to expand libel laws and trying to delegitimize the judicial branch, have yet to be addressed in this thread.

President Obama does that now with his many executive orders.

So, the precedent has been established, for Trump to make/expand laws.

What is the name of the LGBT gun rights group and where do I sign up?

Do you mean the Pink Pistols?

Actually, Obama does respect the judicial branch. He may criticize rulings, but he considers them legitimate and upholds them. Trump, on the other hand, appears to want to bully the judicial branch into submission for what seem to be largely personal interests (doesn't want people to criticize him, doesn't want a court ruling against him regarding Trump U).

One example:

President Obama issued an executive order to grant amnesty to "undocumented" people.

Thus, he's able to bypass the legislative branch, and make his own immigration laws.

Trump will have this power and likely make much use of it.

Thus, the question of whether Trump will "follow the rule of law" misses the point, since Trump will make the new laws he wants.

The group is titled Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah. Some years ago, I transfered ownership of it to an LGBT-friendly associate and military veteran who is a firearms instructor, and wanted to offer his classes to LGBT individuals. The group can be found in most Internet searches.

Yeah, that stuff is troubling. The other day, after Hilary’s speech, he also hinted that she would be re-investigated/prosecuted if he won the presidency… That’s troubling too.

What’s much, much worse is how these things DON’T trouble Trump’s ardent supporters…

Trump is just a symptom, his supporter’s apathy to these things is the real disease. The constitution is the basis of the American social contract. It’s clear that Trump’s supporters don’t honor that contract anymore.

This is how societies die.

Just look at the Roman Republic. Sulla marched on Rome, forced the senate to name him dictator, and then he ‘put the republic back on track’ by instituting certain reforms (and killing a few thousand political enemies). However, after this, Sulla gave power back to the senate and retired to the country because his ‘Roman shame’ wouldn’t allow him to become a king…

A generation later, free from ‘Roman shame,’ Julius Caesar made himself king and when the senate killed him and tried to restore republican rule, the mob howled for their blood.

The Roman public had rejected their constitution and values. In short, they tore up their social contract. They didn’t want self-government anymore. They wanted a strong leader to make Rome great again.

I think a lot of Americans feel that way today. For them, self-government doesn’t work. They want a strong leader to take care of them and make things great again.

I think there’s a big chunk of people out there who would be just fine with a dictator. We wouldn’t call him that. We’d still go through the motions of democracy. We’d still elect a congress, but the president would rule by decree and they be fine with that.

That’s what the Romans did. They reverted to monarchy with Octavian, but they couldn’t bear to acknowledge the fact for about 300 years…

Guess going against speech rights is constitutional for today US conservatives...