From the NBC interview:

"Asked by Welker if he needed to uphold the Constitution as president, Trump was uncertain.

“I don’t know. I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said,” Trump said.

So much for that sworn oath he took with his hand on the Bible 100 days ago.

“I, Donald John Trump, do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”

https://www.politico.com/news/...onstitution-00326040

quote:

So much for that sworn oath he took with his hand on the Bible 100 days ago.

Except he very pointedly did NOT place his hand on the Bible, if you’ll recall.

Considering his notoriously unscrupulous behaviour, I wouldn’t doubt he considers that as an ‘out’.

quote:

Originally posted by Tumbleweed:

quote:

So much for that sworn oath he took with his hand on the Bible 100 days ago.

Except he very pointedly did NOT place his hand on the Bible, if you’ll recall.

Considering his notoriously unscrupulous behaviour, I wouldn’t doubt he considers that as an ‘out’.

Ahh ha! He is a clever fellow.

At the time, I just thought he was afraid it would catch fire if he touched it. Turns out, he might have been thinking ahead.

If you take an oath you've taken an oath; doesn't matter if your hand is on the Bible or on a hooker's ass!

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
If you take an oath you've taken an oath; doesn't matter if your hand is on the Bible or on a hooker's ass!

Well, he’s had it on a hookers ass somewhat more often, from what I understand …

“I do solemnly swear that this hooker has the finest ass in America! Nobody’s ever seen anything like it! Nobody’s ever done as much for hookers asses as I have!”

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:
If you take an oath you've taken an oath; doesn't matter if your hand is on the Bible or on a hooker's ass!

They should have asked Stormy to the inauguration.

Of course he must
And so do the other 2 branches

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Of course he must
And so do the other 2 branches

You mean the Judicial and CHICKENSHIT legislative branches? He ignores and walks all over the CHICKENSHITS.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Of course he must
And so do the other 2 branches

The arbitrator is the Federal Courts. That is the law on the matter.

If you do not accept they, then pick up a right.

quote:

Originally posted by LHeym500:

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Of course he must
And so do the other 2 branches

The arbitrator is the Federal Courts. That is the law on the matter.

If you do not accept they, then pick up a right.

And yet not final arbitrator, not even scotus is. See jobamas attempts at student loan voter buying. Heck, not even a constitutional amendment is final, see prohibition. And not even a scotus decision is final, see dobbs. Or we can pick up heller, where states and local governments are still passing and implementing laws that are blatantly is conflict with heller

Might look up the word co-equal, and the the constitutional definition of the word "congress"

Of course there is the current congressional approach of no lo for "usurped powers"

When one is young and inexperienced, one tends to see a polychromatic world as black and white... sometimes while working in an environment that identical charges lead to different RESULTS, even in the same court.

Let me throw in the "Indian Citizenship Act of 1924" to help you as to why the 14th is unclear, even relatively contemporaniously to its passing

If it's so obvious, why was an act of congress and presidential approval required?

Why does an elder friend of mine, born in Japan poat wwii (near Nagasaki, for what thats worth) to a Japanese lady and a US soldier , have to have Ike's signature on her entry permit?

If it was all cut and dried, there wouldn't be 1.35 million lawyers in the US

Yes they are. Read Marbury v. Madison (1803).

You have skipped into fool territory when you try to play lawyer.

If you can’t live with it, pick up a rifle. I’ll oppose you, but have more respect for you.

We know what the 5tb Amendment says about providing due process to undocumented migrants who reach the U.S.

You realize that Act was passed because the S. Ct. Choosing not to do something and being unable to do it are two different things.

Since, 1952 through 2025, the S. CT., has been consistent, even where the U.S. has de facto sovereignty, non-citizens are entitled to due process and that process is mandatory.

So, look, we are friends and i don't chose to insult you. YOU blew off every FACT, not presumption, that i said, as it doesn't meet your CURRENT world view, as prior to 1,6,2021 you were a died hard trump fan boy

Nothing I said was false, but if you READ and THOUGHT about it, you would see those 2 posts DESTROY your world view.

Have you notice, not ONE lawyer, certainly no one mentally too deficient to be a lawyer has supported you?

If YOUR world view can't take de facto world view, you might alter it

We get it, you are bith young and frantically. Don't pretend you weren't a trump fan boy in the past.

Dobbs
Heller
Roe
Sanctuary cities
Your SILENCE when Obama did it.

Might take a moment to reflect rather than relax....


Etc etc etc

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
When one is young and inexperienced, one tends to see a polychromatic world as black and white... sometimes while working in an environment that identical charges lead to different RESULTS, even in the same court.

Cass Sunstein and somebody else I've forgotten wrote a book on the topic:

"Noise: A Flaw in Human Judgment".

An interesting set of examples of exactly that.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
So, look, we are friends and i don't chose to insult you. YOU blew off every FACT, not presumption, that i said, as it doesn't meet your CURRENT world view, as prior to 1,6,2021 you were a died hard trump fan boy

Nothing I said was false, but if you READ and THOUGHT about it, you would see those 2 posts DESTROY your world view.

Have you notice, not ONE lawyer, certainly no one mentally too deficient to be a lawyer has supported you?

If YOUR world view can't take de facto world view, you might alter it

We get it, you are bith young and frantically. Don't pretend you weren't a trump fan boy in the past.

Dobbs
Heller
Roe
Sanctuary cities
Your SILENCE when Obama did it.

Might take a moment to reflect rather than relax....


Etc etc etc

I understand them as. And the law does not support you. That is my experience. My statement is anchored in the Constitution.

If you will not accept they, pick up a rifle and declare your intent to change our constitutional system.

The fake right, which has come to include you, would give unilateral power to the Executive to deny due process mandated by the Constitution, the 5th Amendment as recognized by the S. Ct. Our system places as final arbitration in the federal courts.

The means must be proper regardless of the ends.

Your advocacy would permit an Executive to deny any of us due process and ignores the courts mandates of due process. Your advocacy would permit states to bar a candidate from seeking the presidency.


Your have slid into hypocrisy. I care not to save you, but to provide the law that refutes you for the person listening.

President Trumps seeks unilateral power free of the checks and valances of the legislature and the curds. Free of the Constitution as amended.

Trust no person. Bolster institutions, checks and balances, and the law.

There are a few in the Senate starting to buck.

Since at least 1952 through 2025, the S. CT., has held this class of persons records due process mandated as a mandate of the Constitution. If the Executive is able to ignore that mandate today. Another will ignore that mandate against you. Against all of us.

Take your patronizing and choke on it. You are not as wise as you pretend.

Finally, I believe you did not vote for President Trumps. That does not absolve you of your attempts to give credence to his destruction of the Constitution as applied, implemented by the Court.

quote:

Originally posted by jeffeosso:
Of course he must
And so do the other 2 branches

The judicial branch is having a hard time....

Pick up a rifle? Really???? You wuss if you stubbed your toe you'd cry mama!

Like most leftists.....always calling for violence.....like the clan, like wallace.....who shot lincoln?????


Democrats can't win an argument so they want to resort to violence.....antifa.....blm.....hands up don't shoot.....you all are one and the same!

Really, the Courts are the funds arbitrator of our disputes. If one cannot accept that, stop whining and do something.

I suggest one accept that legal FS T and hold politicians that seek to destroy Thst accountable.

The first step is denouncing them, pressure upon Congress to impeach and convict, and so not vote for those who engage in such Regimes in the future.

Every citizen needs to be shouting down this Regime violation of constitutional mandates due process. From what I have seen, despite the Texas contingent, folks at large are not responding to the Regime’s attempt to side step the Constitution.

Tge next election is 2026.