The 5 Trump Amendments to the Constitution

But........they're not. They are well considered observations about how Trump did what may end up being consequential, permanent damage to essential institutional norms. I don't want to speak for Patricio but I suspect he is frustrated with your unwillingness to address the question he's asking by hiding behind your unsubstantiated assertion about "those who work to destroy" the Constitution.

 

Its crap. #1 assumes a false premise that a crime was committed and that a party is protecting the president.

As far as destroying the constitution, I live where Dems have destroyed the second amendment. Perhaps you oppose your parties overreach on the issue.

 

It assumes nothing of the kind. It suggests he committed an impeachable offense......which he did. Those Repub senators who voted to acquit by cowardly using the specious jurisdictional argument were protecting themselves from the Trump cult. Every honest observer acknowledges that.
Destroyed the 2nd Amendment? Sounds scary. Are you not able to open carry an Uzi.?

 

disagree.

 

What's amazing is that you can't see what is plain as day. Oh yes, Senate republicans are definitely protecting Trump.

Did any democrat take away your right to own a firearm?

No.

Quit being untruthful.

 

Why?

 

For starters, the author of the piece in the OP seems to assume that those five things done by Donald Trump are precedent setting that will be repeated by other presidents in the future.

I don't see actions that are clearly self serving by Donald Trump for his own narrow interests will set any kind of new standard for future presidents.

I believe that most people who run for president of the United States (from both parties) are fundamentally good people who wish to do the right thing.

 

You mean the section Biden is ignoring like never before?

 

So all guns have been confiscated, and it is illegal for anyone to have a gun where you live?

 

Amendment 6:
The president may reject democratic elections and violently attack Congress if they uphold democracy.

 

Funny, I was thinking of starting a thread about Amendment 4.

Fighting fire with fire is not something that the Ds seem to do well.

The clock is ticking. Come Nov 2022 Biden could lose the House and the Senate.

Trump has demonstrated perfectly legal methods to exert executive power immediately for installing a new cabinet as well as every single other position filled by Presidential appointment.

Biden should just appoint interim positions and ignore the Senate for 300 days.

On or about the 300th day he should then just submit all appointees for confirmation.

Any that fail can legally remain in place for another 7 months, after a failed vote.

I may not have this correct. I'm certainly not well read on this type of thing. However, what recourse would there really be to remove someone from their position if the President didn't do it? Pretty much none.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Vacancies_Reform_Act_of_1998

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/12/21/opinions/vacancies-act-trump-berry/index.html

***

It really amazes me that folks don't see the structural problems Trump has created, or more aptly, revealed. Bannon explicitly supported Trump to facilitate breaking the "establishment". Putin supported Trump, and likely still has leverage on him.

That the courts do not enforce Congressional subpoenas is a failure of the Constitution, plain and simple. Dirt simple. There is nothing ambiguous about the fact that the Constitution gives Congress the sole power of impeachment. The Court is remiss and acting unconstitutionally by failing to enforce Congressional subpoenas. The Court has taken for itself the authority to be the sole power to interpret the Constitution. It is implicit that if the Congress has the sole power to remove the President from office that is has the power to access anything it wants to access as part of that process.

But that is not the way it works. Precedent has been established by the Court that is basically just a shrug regarding Congressional subpoenas. No enforcement mechanism. Seems like something the 39 vaunted founding fathers should have thought about. Nope. 30y old Hamilton and 36y old Madison seemed to have missed it.

***
There will never be a Constitutional amendment passed given the divide in the US at this point. And there will certainly never be another successful Constitutional Convention....

 

Yeah, and how many people thought Trump would 'grow with the job, become presidential, become a real president'. That didn't happen, so so much for predictions. You don't see? how in holy hell can you say that? You don't know. We have now have precedents, and those precedents cannot be allowed to stand, period. end of argument. Only a fool would let it stand. THERE IS TOO MUCH AT STAKE. On this, we don't wait, we act.

No one can predict what future presidents will do, but one thing a president does not do, if he is a good president, is do the things that Donald Trump did, as noted in the article.

As for 'most people who run for president are good' well, with one exception, Donald Trump.

His primary interest when he tossed his hat in the ring was to increase the Trump brand awareness, he never thought he could win.

I saw him on TV, in 2015, where he was asked what his chances were, and i distinctly remember him saying " I think I have about a 20% chance of winning" On his first rally, there is the clipped ad on Craigslist soliciting attendees to his first rally, he paid them $50 each. And, guess what, the firm that actually ran the ad for Trump, they had to wait a long time to even get paid. Trump doesn't like to pay people. We have testimony after testimony of Trump stiffing, or drastically cutting, the pay he contracted for. We have Trump extolling the virtues of 'buying American made brands' and all the merchandise he sold were maid in China and other countries. When he campaigned in steel country, he touted "'American Steel", he said that while he purchased cheaper steel from China for his building projects. The man is a complete fake. When he says "fake news' it is he, not the news, who is fake. Every time he accused someone else of something, he was the one guilty of what he accused others of.

Every action by Trump is done not for any reason other than to improve public perception of Donald Trump.

Most presidents, after they win, the campaigning stops. Not with Trump, he continued having rallies several times each and every month he was president. Why would he do that? there is only one reason, he loved the adulation and he wanted it to continue even after he won. No president in history ever did that, and this proves, inescapably and incontrovertibly, the only thing that kept him going was adulation from his base. Every time a question was put to him, every time he tweeted, you will note that often he is touting his stats, see, it's all about Trump. Once, in a hospital, where he had the opportunity to show empathy to the person next to him in a hospitable bed, he complained to the journalist that was asking him questions, that the cameras weren't showing his big crowd outside the hospital cheering him. Often at rallies, he complained that the cameras didn't do a wide shot to show the size of the crowd. That's who Trump is. He is, as some psychiatrists have noted, a malignant narcissist. He complained about this often, all he cared about was his fricking crowd size. Even with tweeting about covid, in the the tweet about covid he would tout the stock market stats.

Yes, all presidents are basically good people and are empathetic, with one exception.

Donald Trump.

Donald Trump, if you recall, is the same fellow who shtupped a porn star just after his newly wed wife gave birth and years later, just before the election, paid her $130k to keep quiet about it. Not only did he do this once to his newly wed wife, he did it again with a playboy playmate, and paid her $150k just before the election, as well. He said he didn't want his wife to find out. But, how is that possible, because if that were true, he would have paid the hush money to her just after he did the deed. No, he waited a few years later and only did it just before the election when he found out that Stormy Daniels was going to the press. The man is a liar, and a cheat. There is even a book written by a former golf buddy on how he cheats at golf. He lies when he doesn't even need to lie, the man simply does not know how to tell the truth.

Why? Because Donald Trump is fundamentally NOT a good person, he is a sociopath. A sociopath is someone who cannot feel empathy towards others. On top of that, he is a criminal. Note that I am only scratching the surface here, noting that he was, as president, the worst president in history. he has done more damage to this country than any president in history. For years, no bank would lend him money, and we have Eric Trump on tape admitting that they are funded by Russians.

I tell this, and tons of other bad **** about Trump, to republicans, and what is their reply?

That I have "TDS".

Trump is a master mind manipulator, he is the world's greatest flim flam man, PT Barnum would be impressed, and there is his talent.

"You can't fool all the people all the time, but you can fool some of the people some of the time, and..........

it's just enough to make a good living" ---PT Barnum, mocking/twisting a quote by Lincoln.

.

 

No one can realistically expect the forefathers to think of every conceivable problems that the future would bring, especially as far into the future as 2016 - 2020 from late 18th century. The also didn't figure on how difficult, well nigh impossible, new amendments would be. So, the only solution now is to get rid of the filibuster so one party, the democratic party, can work to fix these issues, because, let's get something straight, the republican party has no intention of fixing them. The republican party has no intention of doing a damn thing about anything, except making it harder for blacks and minorities to vote, for making it harder for women to terminate pregnancies, and providing more tax breaks to the super rich and crumbs for everyone else.

 

The only thing the previous pres needed protection from was Democrats. There was no crime.

The second amendment is not about "owning" a firearm, but the answer to your question is yes. Democrats have taken my right to own many firearms and have taken my right to bear arms. No CCWs are issued to private citizens where I live. To be fair, Reagan trampled on second amendment rights when the Black Panthers were policing their own neighborhoods with loaded rifles. You live in CA, so I assume you are aware of the many gun control laws imposed on law abiding citizens.

My statement is truthful.

 

Confiscating all guns cannot be done all at once, so the "boil the frog" method is being used. Currently, a center fire rifle where the webbing between the thumb and forefinger is below the level of the top of the trigger, is banned. Those who already owned them had to register them and they cannot be sold or transferred. That means that they will be confiscated upon death.


I live in Los Angeles, and the right to bear arms only exists for those who can convince the sheriff they have good cause. As a result of the "May issue" policy, only cops, judges, and criminals carry guns here. There are a few hundred CCWs for 4 million people.

 

Dems have taken away rights you make claims to have but are not afforded to you. Even the extremist A. Scalia said......... “Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

 

Like the analogy you used, gun confiscation is a myth. Something the NRA pulls out of its hat to boost gun sales.

 

Fair enough. Just don't make claims that the constitution is something you value or are willing to defend.

 

If demonizing my attitude towards the Constitution based made up or assumed attributions satisfies a need you have to make yourself feel better about your own......so be it.

 

Didn't happen.

 

You are incorrect. It is in fact law in CA. I even gave an example. Im surprised you didn't know that.

 

demonstrably false

 

I feel great regardless of your opinions. The second amendment is clear and I understand the position of letting the states govern themselves. In the case of gay marriage, the states were forced to recognize same sex marriages.

The founding fathers and the constitution only come up when convenient.

I support gun rights for gay married couples!

 

This?

https://apnews.com/article/3ca4e1f867f2490c98b042358f8bf3b3

 

It is anything but clear. A militia is mentioned twice in the Constitution's 7 articles. Once considering it as a supplement to the Army and once stating it is under the control of the prez. Meaning it's under federal control. Congress "organizes, arms, disciplines, governs, and establishes training" for the militia. It's essentially the National Guard. In 2008 (Heller) the SC interpreted the 2nd A to mean any citizen could own a firearm whether one is connected with the NG or not.
Justice Stevens' took vigorous issue with Scalia’s assertion that it was the 2nd A that had enshrined the individual right to own a gun. Reasonable people thus disagree about the rights the 2nd do and do not give.