The 5 Trump Amendments to the Constitution

I've addressed Trump's legacy of corruption in another thread, but on this, I want to address another aspect, that Trump's legacy has been a kind of creeping fascism. No, his legacy didn't result in a full fledged fascist regime, but it pushed America in that direction on a scale hitherto unexperienced by past administrations. This was allowed to happen by a complacent and complicit republican senate. This occurred because the entire relationship between branches, is, in a sense, based on trust and the notion that the president would be a reasonable person and act in good faith, two points of which Trump is neither.

Apparently, though the founding fathers were worried about such a politician, they did little in the constitution and in law to actually prevent it from happening. For example, that a president can defy congressional subpoenas with impunity, they assumed that presidents would take their oath 'to faithfully execute the law", etc., seriously, as congressional subpoenas are lawful and defying them en masse, without cause for each, and instructing a president's staff to do the same, is unlawful. But, since the law on congressional subpoenas having no teeth, and a complicit partisan senate seeing congressional oversight as something that is optional, the president was able to get away with it. Therefore, in the event of another wannabe dictator on the horizon, legislation is needed to prevent it, one that has real consequences for non-compliance. Now, I've truncated the quote, so read the article for the commentary on each.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/opinion/the-5-trump-amendments-to-the-constitution/ar-BB1dU0yL

When I step back to look at the legacy of President Donald Trump, a surprising conclusion emerges: He has substantially altered the Constitution. His changes aren’t formal, of course. But his informal amendments are important. If left to stand, they threaten to make Congress an advisory body and give carte blanche to rogue presidents.

Amendment 1. No president shall be removed from office for treason, bribery, or any other crime or misdemeanor, no matter how high, should a partisan minority of the Senate choose to protect him.
[...]
Amendment 2. Congressional oversight shall be optional. No congressional subpoena or demand for testimony or documents shall bind a president who chooses to ignore it.
[,,,]
Amendment 3. Congressional appropriations shall be suggestions. The president may choose whether or not to comply with congressional spending laws, and Congress shall have no recourse should a president declare that his own priorities supersede Congress’s instructions.
[...]
Amendment 4. The president shall have authority to make appointments as he sees fit, without the advice and consent of the Senate, provided he deems his appointees to be acting, temporary, or otherwise exempt from the ordinary confirmation process.
[...]
Amendment 5. The president shall have unconstrained authority to dangle and issue pardons for the purpose of obstructing justice, tampering with witnesses, and forestalling investigations.
[...]

 

Awesome work!

 

Without question dangerous precedents have been established. Ones claiming plenary executive powers while upsetting the historic check Congress had on the prez. You might enjoy reading this article which recommends a plentiful but incomplete list of needed reforms.

Repairing the Rule of Law: An Agenda for Post-Trump Reform
https://www.lawfareblog.com/repairing-rule-law-agenda-post-trump-reform

 

Trump oversaw the best economy in history until the Chinese virus hit. He'd have been re-elected in a landslide for sure otherwise. And I'm not convinced he wasn't eliminating the late night ballot dumps.

 

Creeping Fascism is what the left threatens us with now.
What we mainly saw, as the as the administrative stated tried desperately to visit personal destruction on several Americans whose only real crime was working for the president Trump, was just how corrupt the nasty the DC cess pool has gotten, how vile and how sanctimonious it has become, and the hubris that would seem to be it's one and only guiding principle.

 

Just because you say the word "FASCISM" doesn't mean its happening. A real FASCISM example is crying for "unity" but it really means "conformity" and this FASCISM comes mostly from the LEFT

 

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength. Don't believe what you're seeing. Unity is conformity.

Got it.

 

Odd to see those pushing for bigger government take a sudden interest in limiting power.

 

Surely you understand the difference between debates over what services government provides and what constitutional powers the executive branch can rightly claim.

 

I do understand the psychology behind claiming to value the constitution and what our founding fathers risked their lives for, while working to destroy it.

 

The only power leftist are interested in limiting is that of their opposition.

 

Lawfare's a good blog, I'll check it out, thanks.

 

Rebuttal too vague.

 

vague undefined assumptions, not a competent rebuttal.

 

Nothing here to rebut. Its an opinion. Why not add 100 more amendments since people are only care about those they agree with anyway?

 

Your listless dodge is noted.

 

There is nothing to dodge. This is an opinion by the same people that don't care about existing amendments they disagree with. Why not add 100 more?

 

Like Trump's disregard for Sec. 3 of the 14th Amendment.

Would you like to answer my simple question? Surely you understand the difference between debates over what services government provides and what constitutional powers the executive branch can rightly claim.

 

The article referenced made an extremely valid point about what Trump did. 5 were given because they were the 5 salient things Trump did, which, if not corrected, creates a precedent detrimental to democracy and will contribute to it's decline.

Agree or disagree? If disagree, why?

 

You may also add his disregard for the 2nd and 5th saying we should take guns first, due process later. Why not add 1000 more if we only have to stick with those we agree with?

 

Prepare to be dodged.

 

We who?

 

Bending the constitution around a former president has zero benefit to society. Each side works to limit power for the opposition while increasing it for themselves. If the former president has you thinking about limiting power, thats a good thing ad long as it applies to all of them.

 

You're dodging the question.

It's not what I think, it's the 5 salient points the author raised.

Agree or disagree?

 

These are nothing more than emotional reactions towards an individual that no longer holds office and contains ZERO benefit for society. Now that the previous president no longer holds office, the author knows how to sell a product he knows his audience it starved for. Feigning concern for the constitution and the intentions of our founders by those who work to destroy it is a product for the gullible.