Active Now

Danilo_G
Malizz
Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » How long can someone get away with trying to abrogate/ignore/trample on The Constitution of the United States of America? Why?

How long can someone get away with trying to abrogate/ignore/trample on The Constitution of the United States of America? Why?

Does anyone exist who is above the law? Does anyone exist who calls all the shots no matter what laws are  broken/ignored/defiled? Who is that person and why would he get away with it?

Posted - February 5, 2017

Responses


  • I don't know but I really cannot figure out how  Trump has gotten away with so many things that are blatantly unconstitutional. It's beyond belief! Surely it cannot continue? 
      February 5, 2017 5:31 AM MST
    3

  • 113301
    I notice you posed that as a question my friend. Not a statement. I totally understand why. Because so far he IS GETTING AWAY WITH IT! Shocking isn't it?  Thank you for your reply DdbTD and Happy Wednesday to thee! :)
      February 8, 2017 4:29 AM MST
    0

  • 32527
    Examples?
      February 5, 2017 5:58 AM MST
    0

  • I know this was not directed at me, and we know I am no expert, sometimes that makes it easier to see things from a more objective perspective. So from my, inexpert, view, I believe that there are valid questions regarding several things, I don't know them all, but so far: the fact that to all intents and purposes he IS still running and in charge of a company, a big one, with many business interests, this means that there are real questions as to whether this is against the constitution, in terms of spirit, if not wholly word*. there are very real questions regarding objectivity and conflict of interests re previous.   Also, the latest ban on muslims from 7 countries, refugees etc. there are real and valid questions regarding whether that is against the constitution. 
    Those are but two... I am no expert. It would be very wrong to say that Trump has behaved and made decisions that are entirely in-keeping with the constitution; therefore the question is perfectly valid. These things should be discussed, they should be examined and this is for the good of the country and for the prevention of harm to the country... What would be very unhelpful and what IS unhelpful is where these valid concerns are shoved under the carpet and met with dismissal, denial and even anger and retribution by the Trump tribe.  
      February 5, 2017 6:22 AM MST
    1

  • 32527
    No where in the Constitution does it require a President to divest of his/her business.
    The temporary pause in immigrants from the 7 terrorists supporting countries is not illegal. Pres Trump is also not the first Pres to institute such a pause. Pres Obama and Pres Carter issued the same type of pauses during their presidencies. They constitutional. 
      February 5, 2017 6:37 AM MST
    1

  • Well thank you for your response, I bow to your greater expertise here.. and I am humbly grateful for the opportunity to learn and hear all sides of the argument. 

    It seems to me that it's unconstitutional with a small c in that there is a clear expectation that the pres is kept free from conflicts of interests such as caused by business ownership.. that's just commonsense as the prez needs to be uncompromising and uncompromised and making decisions based on what's good for the country rather than what's good for his business. A careful leader would want to ensure he has public respect in that way.. Here we have to declare if we have conflict of interest even at the lowest form of government.. and we aren't allowed to vote or be part of any decisions/discussions where we might be biased.  Seems to me a pretty good and decent way to be. 

    Re the immigration ban.. well ya but the poor soul has had to back track mega-ly on that one hasn't he so it's kinda a mute issue... and regardless of whether it's legal or not, ( I am not convinced I mentioned illegality) one has to question exactly how *safe* it's gonna keep America banning muslims from only 7 countries for a handful of days.. Interesting they didn't include many other countries such as Pakistan where known terrorists are often based... etc. etc.  So the efficacy is definitely questionable for sure, as is how much public respect Trump will receive for that stunt.

    But those weren't the questions .. it was whether it's unconstitutional, esp the fact it's one religion and the ban on refugees too.. and the constitution does kinds mention something or other about religion and religious freedom to do with being welcomed.. 

    Personally  i am not wild about ISIS or terrorism either - but it seems very questionable that short temporary ban is really gonna help.. and I guess my main point would also be to remember please that what I think doesn't really matter cos there are a billion or so saying the same in your own country.. so I am interested in all the answers and debate. 
      February 7, 2017 3:17 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    The purpose of the pause is not just to delay by days the entry of the people. It is to review the vetting process for these countries and to improve it so terrorists cannot use the refugee program to gain entry into the US. This is the same thing and same reason Obama did this in 2011 with Iraq. We know we still need to improve because more terrorists were arrested last Jan (2016) who used the refugee program to get in. 
    Personally I think Pakistan should be on the list as well. But what they did was use the law passed by Congress and Pres Obama saying these 7 countries in particular we a "risk of foreign fighters" coming through the refugee program because of vetting issues. 
    Pres Trump is not running Trump Enterprises his sons are. 
      February 7, 2017 4:00 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    :):):)
      February 8, 2017 4:32 AM MST
    0

  • 113301
    LOOK UP EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE IN THE CONSTITUTION m2c. Are you familiar with it? Make yourself familiar with it. This post was edited by RosieG at February 8, 2017 4:33 AM MST
      February 8, 2017 4:32 AM MST
    0

  • 32527
    I am familiar with it. I don't see any issues. 
      February 8, 2017 5:30 AM MST
    0

  • 154
    Obama did !  No one thought he was in the wrong.
      February 5, 2017 6:04 AM MST
    2

  • Oh really? Pray do enlighten me as to how that was? As our esteemed friend my2cents gave in her example above, please do tell how so?  Thanking you in anticipation. 
      February 5, 2017 6:23 AM MST
    1

  • 32527
    I gave no example....I asked for examples. 
      February 5, 2017 6:39 AM MST
    0

  • Ahem, my2cents, my response was to Tiger... I didn't ask you for examples or imply that you should give.. It's ok no need to apologise we all make the mistake of reading too quickly and getting it wrong. 
      February 7, 2017 3:00 PM MST
    0

  • 32527
    I responded to this from your comment above...."As our esteemed friend my2cents gave in her example above,..."
    As I said I was asking for examples not supplying them.
      February 7, 2017 4:04 PM MST
    0

  • Erm sorry.. this is getting confusing I know but the esteemed 2cents was not one where I asked you for examples... I was referring to your *example* of asking for examples... in other words you inspired me.. feel free to take that as a compliment and I hope you see now what I mean and as I say don't worry about it.. we all make mistakes.. thanks for your input re constitutional matters and Trumps getting round the expectation by making his sons trustees of the company.. the allegation is, and I am sure you recognise this isn't me saying so, that this is a hogwash, that it's a pseudo passing over of the reigns..that we all know he retains ownership and control.. in any event he is hardly likely to be unbiased when the company he built up and which his children hold in trust for him is concerned.. so point being that there are logical concerns and those have a fair degree of validity. 
      February 7, 2017 4:15 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    Ok I understand now. I thought you were saying I gave an example. When I had asked for one.....yes was very confusing. 
      February 7, 2017 4:42 PM MST
    0

  • 154
    Libya!
      February 7, 2017 2:33 PM MST
    0

  • Ok cool so do enlighten me.. specifically what did Obama allegedly do that is relevant to this discussion. I look forward with anticipation.
      February 7, 2017 3:19 PM MST
    0

  • 32527
    Tiger, is this what you are talking about with Libya? Obama helping prevent Lybian refugees from entering Italy with a naval blockade. Or Something else? 

    https://m.thetrumpet.com/articles/13801,19 This post was edited by my2cents at February 7, 2017 7:36 PM MST
      February 7, 2017 7:26 PM MST
    0

  • 154
    His bombing of Libya without Congressional approval.
      February 9, 2017 12:19 PM MST
    1

  • 32527
    Ok....the actual cause of the refugee problem in Libya that Obama then offered to help solve with a naval blockade. 
    Gotcha....
      February 9, 2017 12:24 PM MST
    1

  • 372
    Nixon famously said, "If the president does it, it's not against the law." Coming from lawyer Nixon, this statement was all the more shocking.

    The US Constitution follows Magna Carta which placed the law above the King. The year was 1215. Trump has already shown his disrespect for the law by firing the acting Attorney General when she opposed his order telling the Justice Department how to act. Scary.
      February 5, 2017 6:29 AM MST
    3

  • 113301
    Bingo Louie! It amazes me how sincerely The Donald worshippers defend him for his wrongdoing. Does it amaze you too or shock you? Thank you for your thoughtful  and informative reply and Happy Wednesday! :)
      February 8, 2017 4:35 AM MST
    0