(Trump) calls for the termination of the Constitution.

Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2022 04:52 am
(Trump) calls for the termination of the Constitution
to overturn the 2020 election and put him back in

Published December 3, 2022

  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 8 • Views: 1,461 • Replies: 20

Real Music
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2022 05:35 am
(Trump) Admits the U.S. Constitution Is Against Him.

Published December 3, 2022

Donald Trump hit a kind of anti-democracy benchmark on Saturday: In a post on his Truth Social platform, the former president literally called for the suspension of the U.S. Constitution in order to reverse his 2020 election loss.

Amid yet another rant about his two-year-old election defeat, Trump claimed that “a massive fraud of this type and magnitude allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.” He then suggested that the “Founders” (which he also put in quotation marks) would agree with him.

It’s not clear what, precisely, Trump believes “allows” for the termination of parts of the Constitution or how that would or could happen. There is, at this point, ample evidence that Trump has never had much grasp of what the U.S. Constitution is or means, let alone how much time, effort, and bipartisan consensus is required to modify it (legally). But Trump’s latest comment indicates he may have finally figured out that the Constitution stands in the way of his efforts to do something unconstitutional, like overturn the result of a presidential election.

“UNPRECEDENTED FRAUD REQUIRES UNPRECEDENTED CURE!” Trump added in another Truth Social post later Saturday.

The past month has been pretty rough for former president. Most of the hacky election-denying candidates he backed in the 2022 midterms were defeated at the polls. That prompted the closest we’ve seen to a post-presidency revolt against Trump from both GOP insiders and right-wing media, while there was widespread praise for Trump-in-waiting Ron DeSantis. Then, barely a week after Trump announced his 2024 candidacy, the former president earned big headlines by having dinner at Mar-a-Lago with both a prominent white supremacist and someone who is now arguably America’s most well-known antisemite and Hitler fan.

Then on Thursday, a panel of 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (including two Trump appointed) legally eviscerated both Trump’s lawsuit against the Justice Department’s Mar-a-Lago raid as well as a lower Trump-appointed federal judge for intervening in the case. And on top of all that, a far richer and more successful businessman, Elon Musk, has quickly become the right’s new favorite loudmouth — and he’s publicly teasing the former president with memes.

Perhaps Trump has finally reached a breaking point after two years of fruitless bellyaching and now he’s finally willing to self-identify as a loud-and-proud would-be dictator. Maybe he’ll become the first presidential candidate to rain Constitution confetti down onto supporters at the end of campaign rallies. Or maybe Trump’s just running his mouth on a weekend when a lot of his base is gawking at somebody else’s overhyped claims about Hunter Biden’s laptop. Whatever Trump is thinking or planning, attacking America’s most important living document might not resonate the way he expects.

0 Replies
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2022 07:14 am
@Real Music,
I'm surprised Melania hasn't signed him into involuntary confinement yet.
Real Music
Reply Sun 4 Dec, 2022 04:27 pm
(Trump) treats the constitution as if it were toilet paper and needed to be flush down the toilet.
Below viewing threshold (view)
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2022 10:28 am
bobsal u1553115
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2022 12:56 pm
He thinks he's a comedian.
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2022 01:23 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

(Trump) treats the constitution as if it were toilet paper and needed to be flush down the toilet.

Not a shocker. He did literally try to flush down official White House documents down the toilet while he was president.
Region Philbis
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2022 01:34 pm

he clogged up the shitter on a regular basis...
0 Replies
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2022 02:29 pm
@bobsal u1553115,
He thinks he's a comedian.

I've noticed – he tried a similar "joke" with blatham last week. Bernie was describing the motives of a particular A2Ker:
Whatever her motives, this last is classic troll behavior.

And our very own Don Rickles steps up to the mic:
Who is this about? Were you looking at a mirror at the time?

Isn't that clever?
bobsal u1553115
Reply Mon 5 Dec, 2022 03:14 pm
As clever as ever he's been: not very.
0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Sat 21 Jan, 2023 02:33 pm
Trump’s demand to jail Supreme Court leak reporter condemned as
‘appalling’ by press freedom advocate.

Published January 20, 2023

Donald Trump’s demand to jail a reporter who broke the story of a leaked Supreme Court draft has been denounced as “appalling” by a leading press freedom activist.

The top court has said that an eight-month investigation to try and identify who had leaked the draft of decision to overturn Roe v Wade had been unable to uncover the source of the leak.

The leaked draft, and its shuddering implications for the country, were published in May by Politico.

Shortly after its publication, Chief Justice John Roberts confirmed the authenticity of the draft and announced an investigation to try and uncover the leaker.

Last year, ahead of the midterm elections, Mr Trump told a rally the only way to find the leaker would be to send them to jail, where they could be the victim of sexual assault.

On Thursday, Mr Trump doubled down on his suggestion, and claimed the reporters had to be jailed until they revealed the source, whom he termed a “slime”.

“They’ll never find out, & it’s important that they do. So, go to the reporter & ask him/her who it was. If not given the answer, put whoever in jail until the answer is given. You might add the publisher and editor to the list,” he wrote on Truth Social.

He later added: “It won’t take long before the name of this slime is revealed.”

The former president’s comments were condemned by many, including defenders of press freedom.

“Trump’s statement isn’t exactly surprising, given he’s been saying similar things on the campaign trail, but it is appalling,” Trevor Timm, Executive Director of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told The Independent.

0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Sun 14 May, 2023 01:31 pm
(Trump) raised the idea of imposing (martial law) to (overturn)
the election in a White House meeting, according to reports.

Published December 20, 2020

President Donald Trump, in a White House meeting, raised the possibility of imposing martial law in a bid to overturn the result of the presidential election, according to reports Saturday.

In a raucous meeting Friday with top aides about his ongoing attempts to overturn the election, Trump was joined by General Michael Flynn, his former national security advisor, reported The New York Times.

A few days earlier on the conservative Newsmax network, Flynn had called for the president to impose martial law, and "rerun an election" in swing states that he lost to President-elect Joe Biden in November.

In the meeting, according to the Times, Trump asked about the idea.

According to the report, it wasn't the only last-ditch plan to subvert the election discussed in the meeting, with Trump also proposing appointing conspiracy theorist Sidney Powell as a special counsel to probe election fraud claims. Rudy Giuliani, Trump's personal attorney, touted the idea of ordering the Department of Homeland Security to seize voting machines.

Axios confirmed key details of the meeting, reporting that Trump had expressed interest in Flynn's plan, and that White House officials are concerned Trump is "spending too much time with people they consider crackpots or conspiracy theorists and flirting with blatant abuses of power."

Shouting matches broke out in the meeting as other officials pushed back against Flynn's and Powell's proposals, reported CNN, whose source said it was unclear if Trump had endorsed the notion. White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows and counsel Pat Cipollone were among the officials who pushed back against the ideas, according to the report.

In a tweet Saturday, Trump responded to the reports, dismissing them as "fake news."

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the reports.

The president has broad powers to suspend normal legal constraints on his authority in response to a "national emergency," such as a natural disaster or terror attack, including deploying troops within the US to subdue unrest and assist law enforcement officers.

However, Joseph Nunn, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, in October, wrote that the legal precedents for a president imposing martial law are vague, with no clear Constitutional principles or Supreme Court rulings governing its use. He wrote that under current law, "the president lacks any authority to declare martial law."

In an interview on CNN Saturday night, John Bolton, Trump's former national security advisor, described Flynn's plan to impose martial law as "appalling."

"Look, this is appalling," he continued. 'There's no other way to describe it. It's unbelievable, almost certainly completely without precedent."

Trump has previously been accused of seeking to violate norms against deploying the military against US citizens. The president planned to invoke the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to quell anti-racism protests over the summer.

On Twitter, former White House ethics counsel Richard Painter responded to Trump discussing invoking martial law with a one-word message: "Treason."

On Friday, Army Secretary Ryan McCarthy and Chief of Staff Gen. James McConville, in a joint statement reported by Task and Purpose, responded to Flynn's call for martial law to be imposed, reiterating the US military's policy of having no involvement in domestic elections.

They said that that there "is no role for the U.S. military in determining the outcome of an American election."

0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2023 01:44 am
1. MAGA Republicans don't believe in the United States Constitution.

2. MAGA Republicans don't believe in the rule of law.

3. MAGA Republicans don't believe in the National Security and National Defense of the United States.

4. The MAGA Republicans cult do believe in a Donald Trump's Autocracy and dictatorship.
0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2023 02:44 am
Published July 17, 2023

0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Thu 20 Jul, 2023 03:02 am
(Trump) and Allies Forge Plans to Increase Presidential Power in 2025

Published July 17, 2023

Donald Trump and his allies are planning a sweeping expansion of presidential power over the machinery of government if voters return him to the White House in 2025, reshaping the structure of the executive branch to concentrate far greater authority directly in his hands.

Their plans to centralize more power in the Oval Office stretch far beyond the former president’s recent remarks that he would order a criminal investigation into his political rival, President Joe Biden, signaling his intent to end the post-Watergate norm of Justice Department independence from White House political control.

Trump and his associates have a broader goal: to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House, according to a review of his campaign policy proposals and interviews with people close to him.

Trump intends to bring independent agencies — like the Federal Communications Commission, which makes and enforces rules for television and internet companies, and the Federal Trade Commission, which enforces various antitrust and other consumer protection rules against businesses — under direct presidential control.

He wants to revive the practice of “impounding” funds, refusing to spend money Congress has appropriated for programs a president doesn’t like — a tactic that lawmakers banned under President Richard Nixon.

He intends to strip employment protections from tens of thousands of career civil servants, making it easier to replace them if they are deemed obstacles to his agenda. And he plans to scour the intelligence agencies, the State Department and the defense bureaucracies to remove officials he has vilified as “the sick political class that hates our country.”

“The president’s plan should be to fundamentally reorient the federal government in a way that hasn’t been done since FDR’s New Deal,” said John McEntee, a former White House personnel chief who began Trump’s systematic attempt to sweep out officials deemed to be disloyal in 2020 and who is now involved in mapping out the new approach.

“Our current executive branch,” McEntee added, “was conceived of by liberals for the purpose of promulgating liberal policies. There is no way to make the existing structure function in a conservative manner. It’s not enough to get the personnel right. What’s necessary is a complete system overhaul.”

Trump and his advisers are making no secret of their intentions — proclaiming them in rallies and on his campaign website, describing them in white papers and openly discussing them.

“What we’re trying to do is identify the pockets of independence and seize them,” said Russell T. Vought, who ran the Office of Management and Budget in the Trump White House and now runs a policy organization, the Center for Renewing America.

The strategy in talking openly about such “paradigm-shifting ideas” before the election, Vought said, is to “plant a flag” — both to shift the debate and to later be able to claim a mandate. He said he was delighted to see few of Trump’s Republican primary rivals defend the norm of Justice Department independence after the former president openly attacked it.

Steven Cheung, a spokesperson for Trump’s campaign, said in a statement that the former president has “laid out a bold and transparent agenda for his second term, something no other candidate has done.” He added, “Voters will know exactly how President Trump will supercharge the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, protect communities and eradicate the deep state that works against Americans once and for all.”

The two driving forces of this effort to reshape the executive branch are Trump’s own campaign policy shop and a well-funded network of conservative groups, many of which are populated by former senior Trump administration officials who would most likely play key roles in any second term.

Vought and McEntee are involved in Project 2025, a $22 million presidential transition operation that is preparing policies, personnel lists and transition plans to recommend to any Republican who may win the 2024 election. The transition project, the scale of which is unprecedented in conservative politics, is led by the Heritage Foundation, a think tank that has shaped the personnel and policies of Republican administrations since the Reagan presidency.

That work at Heritage dovetails with plans on the Trump campaign website to expand presidential power that were drafted primarily by two of Trump’s advisers, Vincent Haley and Ross Worthington, with input from other advisers, including Stephen Miller, the architect of the former president’s hard-line immigration agenda.

Some elements of the plans had been floated when Trump was in office but were impeded by internal concerns that they would be unworkable and could lead to setbacks. And for some veterans of Trump’s turbulent White House who came to question his fitness for leadership, the prospect of removing guardrails and centralizing even greater power over government directly in his hands sounded like a recipe for mayhem.

“It would be chaotic,” said John Kelly, Trump’s second White House chief of staff. “It just simply would be chaotic, because he’d continually be trying to exceed his authority but the sycophants would go along with it. It would be a nonstop gunfight with the Congress and the courts.”

The agenda being pursued has deep roots in the decadeslong effort by conservative legal thinkers to undercut what has become known as the administrative state — agencies that enact regulations aimed at keeping the air and water clean and food, drugs and consumer products safe, but that cut into business profits.

Its legal underpinning is a maximalist version of the so-called unitary executive theory.

The legal theory rejects the idea that the government is composed of three separate branches with overlapping powers to check and balance each other. Instead, the theory’s adherents argue that Article 2 of the Constitution gives the president complete control of the executive branch, so Congress cannot empower agency heads to make decisions or restrict the president’s ability to fire them. Reagan administration lawyers developed the theory as they sought to advance a deregulatory agenda.

“The notion of independent federal agencies or federal employees who don’t answer to the president violates the very foundation of our democratic republic,” said Kevin D. Roberts, the president of the Heritage Foundation, adding that the contributors to Project 2025 are committed to “dismantling this rogue administrative state.”

Personal power has always been a driving force for Trump. He often gestures toward it in a more simplistic manner, such as in 2019, when he declared to a cheering crowd, “I have an Article 2, where I have the right to do whatever I want as president.”

Trump made the remark in reference to his claimed ability to directly fire Robert Mueller, the special counsel in the Russia inquiry, which primed his hostility toward law enforcement and intelligence agencies. He also tried to get a subordinate to have Mueller ousted, but was defied.

Early in Trump’s presidency, his chief strategist, Steve Bannon, promised a “deconstruction of the administrative state.” But Trump installed people in other key roles who ended up telling him that more radical ideas were unworkable or illegal. In the final year of his presidency, he told aides he was fed up with being constrained by subordinates.

Now, Trump is laying out a far more expansive vision of power in any second term. And, in contrast with his disorganized transition after his surprise 2016 victory, he now benefits from a well-funded policymaking infrastructure, led by former officials who did not break with him after his attempts to overturn the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol.

One idea the people around Trump have developed centers on bringing independent agencies under his thumb.

Congress created these specialized technocratic agencies inside the executive branch and delegated to them some of its power to make rules for society. But it did so on the condition that it was not simply handing off that power to presidents to wield like kings — putting commissioners atop them whom presidents appoint but generally cannot fire before their terms end, while using its control of their budgets to keep them partly accountable to lawmakers as well. (Agency actions are also subject to court review.)

Presidents of both parties have chafed at the agencies’ independence. President Franklin D. Roosevelt, whose New Deal created many of them, endorsed a proposal in 1937 to fold them all into Cabinet departments under his control, but Congress did not enact it.

Later presidents sought to impose greater control over nonindependent agencies Congress created, like the Environmental Protection Agency, which is run by an administrator whom a president can remove at will. For example, President Ronald Reagan issued executive orders requiring nonindependent agencies to submit proposed regulations to the White House for review. But overall, presidents have largely left the independent agencies alone.

Trump’s allies are preparing to change that, drafting an executive order requiring independent agencies to submit actions to the White House for review. Trump endorsed the idea on his campaign website, vowing to bring them “under presidential authority.”

Such an order was drafted in Trump’s first term — and blessed by the Justice Department — but never issued amid internal concerns. Some of the concerns were over how to carry out reviews for agencies that are headed by multiple commissioners and subject to administrative procedures and open-meetings laws, as well as over how the market would react if the order chipped away at the Federal Reserve’s independence, people familiar with the matter said.

The Federal Reserve was ultimately exempted in the draft executive order, but Trump did not sign it before his presidency ended. If Trump and his allies get another shot at power, the independence of the Federal Reserve — an institution Trump publicly railed at as president — could be up for debate. Notably, the Trump campaign website’s discussion of bringing independent agencies under presidential control is silent on whether that includes the Fed.

Asked whether presidents should be able to order interest rates lowered before elections, even if experts think that would hurt the long-term health of the economy, Vought said that would have to be worked out with Congress. But “at the bare minimum,” he said, the Federal Reserve’s regulatory functions should be subject to White House review.

“It’s very hard to square the Fed’s independence with the Constitution,” Vought said.

Other former Trump administration officials involved in the planning said there would also probably be a legal challenge to the limits on a president’s power to fire heads of independent agencies. Trump could remove an agency head, teeing up the question for the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court in 1935 and 1988 upheld the power of Congress to shield some executive branch officials from being fired without cause. But after justices appointed by Republicans since Reagan took control, it has started to erode those precedents.

Peter L. Strauss, professor emeritus of law at Columbia University and a critic of the strong version of the unitary executive theory, argued that it is constitutional and desirable for Congress, in creating and empowering an agency to perform some task, to also include some checks on the president’s control over officials “because we don’t want autocracy” and to prevent abuses.

“The regrettable fact is that the judiciary at the moment seems inclined to recognize that the president does have this kind of authority,” he said. “They are clawing away agency independence in ways that I find quite unfortunate and disrespectful of congressional choice.”

Trump has also vowed to impound funds, or refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. After Nixon used the practice to aggressively block agency spending he was opposed to, on water pollution control, housing construction and other issues, Congress banned the tactic.

On his campaign website, Trump declared that presidents have a constitutional right to impound funds and said he would restore the practice — though he acknowledged it could result in a legal battle.

Trump and his allies also want to transform the civil service — government employees who are supposed to be nonpartisan professionals and experts with protections against being fired for political reasons.

The former president views the civil service as a den of “deep staters” who were trying to thwart him at every turn, including by raising legal or pragmatic objections to his immigration policies, among many other examples. Toward the end of his term, his aides drafted an executive order, “Creating Schedule F in the Excepted Service,” that removed employment protections from career officials whose jobs were deemed linked to policymaking.

Trump signed the order, which became known as Schedule F, near the end of his presidency, but Biden rescinded it. Trump has vowed to immediately reinstitute it in a second term.

Critics say he could use it for a partisan purge. But James Sherk, a former Trump administration official who came up with the idea and now works at the America First Policy Institute — a think tank stocked heavily with former Trump officials — argued it would only be used against poor performers and people who actively impeded the elected president’s agenda.

“Schedule F expressly forbids hiring or firing based on political loyalty,” Sherk said. “Schedule F employees would keep their jobs if they served effectively and impartially.”

Trump himself has characterized his intentions rather differently — promising on his campaign website to “find and remove the radicals who have infiltrated the federal Department of Education” and listing a litany of targets at a rally last month.

“We will demolish the deep state,” Trump said at the rally in Michigan. “We will expel the warmongers from our government. We will drive out the globalists. We will cast out the communists, Marxists and fascists. And we will throw off the sick political class that hates our country.”

0 Replies
Real Music
Reply Wed 4 Oct, 2023 05:00 am
Published Aug 8, 2023

0 Replies
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2024 01:06 pm
Trump will destroy this country and our Democracy and those that support him are the most ignorant and uneducated population of this country.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 7 Jan, 2024 04:17 pm
We need a different voting system so we're not held hostage by the
idiots of America! If Trump becomes president, we're toast!
Reply Wed 10 Jan, 2024 12:22 am
TRUMP is nuts, and we must ignore every stupid thing he wants us to do. BLESS YOUR HEATS< CHILDREN.
0 Replies

Related Topics

  1. Forums
  2. » (Trump) calls for the termination of the Constitution.
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/12/2024 at 03:41:32