Trump: Terminate the Constitution

[Swerd]

On the subject of the US Constitution, I saw this Op Ed column in today's Washington Post, by Jennifer Rubin.

So Republicans want to read the Constitution? They should look at these parts.​

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2022/12/06/house-republicans-will-read-constitution-assistance/

Here are some excerpts:

Republican leaders have announced their intention to read the Constitution on the House floor during the first day of the new Congress. That’s all well and good, but they need to understand it as well. Unfortunately, Republicans have shown a troubling lack of comprehension of our founding document in recent years. So here’s some assistance with some sections that seem to trip them up.

Let’s start with Article II, Section 1, Clause 7: “The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”

This provision should have prevented former president Donald Trump from reaping income from foreigners, including foreign government officials who stayed at his properties. Yet Republicans chose to ignore it.

This is particularly important now, as Forbes recently revealed that Trump failed to disclose that he had a nearly $20 million loan with Daewoo, a South Korean conglomerate, while running for president in 2016. Forbes reports, “There’s little doubt that if the world had known about the debt while Trump was president, it would have sparked conflicts-of-interest concerns, perhaps heightened by Daewoo’s historical ties to North Korea. (In the mid-1990s, the firm was the only South Korean company permitted to operate a business inside the country.)” Perhaps Republicans might want to pass legislation prohibiting any president from continuing to do business with foreigners while in office? Just a thought.

Next up is Article II, Section 1, Clause 8: “Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the president] shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) 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.” Enough said, right?

Here’s another critical one: Article II, Section 4. “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Inciting an insurrection, refusing to come to the aid of Congress and the vice president during an attack on the U.S. Capitol, cooking up a scheme to throw out electors, and extorting Ukraine for political favors all meet the definition of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Again, Republicans seemed not to care.

Let’s skip over to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

This should serve as a warning to Republicans and the partisan right-wing hacks they put on the Supreme Court. Should Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate and White House in 2024, they can alter (even abolish!) the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. They could reasonably argue that a court that operates like a partisan body, not a judicial one, shouldn’t be reviewing the decisions of lower courts.

Presumably, Republicans will include in their reading the amendments to the Constitution. The First Amendment reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Note that it does not say “Twitter shall make no law.” Nor that “publishers can reject no book.” The notion, as many on the right suggest, that it is unconstitutional for private companies to refuse to serve as a platform for misinformation or noxious views is nonsense.

It’s also worth calling attention to the “establishment of religion” clause. The framers might be shocked to learn that, according to the right-wing Supreme Court, this doesn’t prohibit organized prayer at school events, government funding of religious schools and the imposition of health-care decisions based on sectarian views.

Republicans should also mull over the 14th Amendment: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

That doesn’t divide Americans into “real Americans” and “elites,” as Republicans so often do. No individual or group is entitled to maintain a grip on power, no matter what Christian nationalists say.

Let’s end on one of my personal favorites, Section 3 of the 14th Amendment: “No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who … shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.”

Republicans should understand that no former president or member of Congress who attempted to prevent the transfer of power in January 2021 should be eligible to serve. Though they shouldn’t need to consult the Constitution to know that.

 

[Bucknekked]

I am surrounded by Trump fans. I have to be very, very quiet as I type this. From what I have seen, they aren't the least bit troubled by his "suspend the Constitution" ramble. Many of my neighbors still had Trump signs in their front yards during the midterms. He has a dedicated following. Enthusiastic even. Are they worried about small details like suspending the Constitution? I think many of them are in favor of a full-scale dumping of the entire government as long at Trump ends up in charge.

 

[lovinthehd]

I am surrounded by Trump fans. I have to be very, very quiet as I type this. From what I have seen, they aren't the least bit troubled by his "suspend the Constitution" ramble. Many of my neighbors still had Trump signs in their front yards during the midterms. He has a dedicated following. Enthusiastic even. Are they worried about small details like suspending the Constitution? I think many of them are in favor of a full-scale dumping of the entire government as long at Trump ends up in charge.

That is so insanely stupid .... you're in Arizona, tho, right?

ps Meant to mention that I too live in a drumphy town....had a neighbor who kept his 2020 campaign sign up until early this year (covered the side of a shed, fortunately didn't quite face my place). I can think of a place or two that still has 'em. We got some of the insanely stupid for sure.

 

[Mr._Clark]

Many of my neighbors still had Trump signs in their front yards during the midterms.

I've thought about putting Hubert Humphrey signs out as a sarcastic commentary of sorts, but I suspect the point would be lost on the intended audience.

 

[Swerd]

I've thought about putting Hubert Humphrey signs out as a sarcastic commentary of sorts, but I suspect the point would be lost on the intended audience.

I remember Hubert Humphrey well. In that 1968 election, I was too young to vote. Tricky D!ck Nixon won – that criminal.

When Nixon was re-elected in 1972, I also remember feeling that the election should be invalidated because of the major crimes he committed during the election campaign. I thought that both he and his Vice President Spiro Agnew should be removed from office, and be replaced by the Speaker of the House until another special election could take place.

Of course, nothing like that happened because nothing in the Constitution addressed that problem. Fortunately, in another 2½ years, both Nixon and Agnew had been run out of office. And we were left with a care-taker president, Gerald Ford, who promptly pardoned Nixon – before he could be indicted for any crime.

 

[lovinthehd]

I remember Hubert Humphrey well. In that 1968 election, I was too young to vote. Tricky D!ck Nixon won – that criminal.

When Nixon was re-elected in 1972, I also remember feeling that the election should be invalidated because of the major crimes he committed during the election campaign. I thought that both he and his Vice President Spiro Agnew should be removed from office, and be replaced by the Speaker of the House until another special election could take place.

Of course, nothing like that happened because nothing in the Constitution addressed that problem. Fortunately, in another 2½ years, both Nixon and Agnew had been run out of office. And we were left with a care-taker president, Gerald Ford, who promptly pardoned Nixon – before he could be indicted for any crime.

Reminds me of Nixon's initial campaign where he used a variety of smears against a female opponent in the 50 senate race....classy republicanism.....

 

[Swerd]

I'd like to focus on one thing mentioned in my previous post on the Washington Post Op-Ed article. See the bold text below.

Let’s skip over to Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: “In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.”

This should serve as a warning to Republicans and the partisan right-wing hacks they put on the Supreme Court. Should Democrats win back the House and keep the Senate and White House in 2024, they can alter (even abolish!) the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. They could reasonably argue that a court that operates like a partisan body, not a judicial one, shouldn’t be reviewing the decisions of lower courts.

I didn't previously know that Congress can alter or abolish the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, as it sees fit. Has this ever happened in US history before?[/QUOTE]

 

[Dan]

If Lincoln didn’t suspend the constitution during the Civil War there is no circumstance that could ever justify its suspension.

 

[Bucknekked]

That is so insanely stupid .... you're in Arizona, tho, right?

ps Meant to mention that I too live in a drumphy town....had a neighbor who kept his 2020 campaign sign up until early this year (covered the side of a shed, fortunately didn't quite face my place). I can think of a place or two that still has 'em. We got some of the insanely stupid for sure.

Arizona is correct. Angry Orange Man has a robust following here. Not past tense.
Thankfully enough people have the freedom of choice and have exercised it so not only did Angry Orange Man did not win in his last attempt, but none of his goons have made it either since 2016. His support and insistence that his circus of candidates only speak his pre-approved words were their undoing. Hopefully like a pendulum, he has reached his zenith and will now begin to recede. One can only hope.

 

[Bucknekked]

If Lincoln didn’t suspend the constitution during the Civil War there is no circumstance that could ever justify its suspension.

Touching any topic around the Civil War is almost as dangerous as offering an opinion on Angry Orange Man.
Since I was born in the State of Washington and currently live in Arizona, both non-combatants and non-existent at the time of the conflict, I am relatively free of Yankee/Reb partisanship. I also love history.

I would suggest that Mr. Lincoln pretty much tucked the Constitution in his hip pocket as he tried to conduct the affairs of keeping the Union in one piece and running a war with just about zero money, zero standing army, and an enemy right across the Potomac River. He only took it out when it was convenient and ignored it when it wasn't.
in 1863 he supported the enactment of Martial Law, and he suspended the writ of habeus corpus in 1861 for anyone who disagreed with his draft decrees and threw anyone in prison that did the same in the newspapers or public discourse. That's pretty close to putting the Constitution on a shelf for nearly 3 years.

We tend to look at him through rose-colored glasses as we sit here in 2022 with all our freedoms intact and all 50 States still in a Union. But that guy played hardball like nobody's business. Unlike Angry Orange Man however, Mr Lincoln actually believed in the Union and the greater good of the country. He did none of his hardball tactics to benefit himself. Without Lincoln, our country simply wouldn't have survived. I give him all the latitude in the world.