Trump vs. the US Constitution

Trump vs. the US Constitution

Trump vs. the US Constitution

donald_trumpTrump supporters like to call their candidate a conservative. The only problem is that Trump himself is anything but. One of the big dealbreakers for our side if you will is respect for the Constitution of the United States. As National Review said here, Trump has no respect for said document.

On January 20, 2017, Chief Justice John Roberts will administer the oath of office to the 45th president: “I 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.” Donald Trump is utterly unqualified to keep this solemn pledge to our most fundamental law. We know this because in winning the nomination, Trump has already promised that he will knowingly break the law and violate the Constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say to do the following:

Free speech? He will “open up the libel laws” to allow public officials to sue the media, and use the Federal Communications Commission to fine critics. Private property? To Trump, eminent domain is a “wonderful thing” and is not actually “taking property” because the owner can move “two blocks away.” Faithfully executing the law? His harebrained scheme to make Mexico pay for the border wall ignores the clear text of a statute and unilaterally prohibits foreign commerce. Serving as commander in chief? Trump has already pledged that he would violate international treaties and domestic law. The military “won’t refuse” his illegal orders. “Believe me,” he promised. Protecting our national security? Trump has lauded FDR’s internment of Japanese Americans, one of the darkest hours in the history of our Republic. And what about the Supreme Court? Assuming he keeps his promise to appoint conservative jurists — and that this promise is not merely a negotiating tactic — Trump’s approach would likely mirror that of George W. Bush: appoint justices who will defer to bold assertions of federal power. Judicial minimalist, thy name is John Roberts.

There is a very good reason that there is a separation of powers folks. The writers of the Constitution formerly were governed by a capricious monarch (suffering from Syphilis and the effects of said disease to be sure) and the excesses of the British Empire in the last half of the 18th century were nothing to joke about. Nor was the French Revolution which was a disaster for that nation of epic proportions. Trump wants to be the absolute ruler and he wants all power to do all things. He is in many ways a modern fascist in his political views. Not calling him a nazi: he is not talking about a final solution and one would hope his daughter and grandkids will remind him that this is a Very Bad Idea (to put it mildly).  He is however wanting to be the ruler of All The Things.  Which makes him more like a Mussolini (Central Control).

Again for the trumpkin crowd, this is from his words, speeches and actions. And his alt-right army of jackasses who scream the vilest things at anyone daring to oppose their false messiah of Yuuuuuuuggeeeee plans. Sorry trumpsters, I have sat through MLM presentations where people promised me a water filter would change my life and get me a benz. These presentations were more impressive than Trump. His response to critics is to name call in a way that nobody would allow a toddler to do. His response to Republicans who do not feel enthusiastic about him being on the ticket? Tweets like this:

What will Trump do when the foreign media does what they do best and mocks him ceaselessly? Throw a tantrum or a nuke? Or send the military or his Lion Guard to beat them up and take their lunches?  Being President is not a license to bully Donald.  But your behavior is just another reason to be #NeverTrump.

Written by

  • OC says:

    Well it’s not like he’d be setting a precedent or anything……

  • GWB says:

    Had a long rebuttal to some of the bits in the second quoted section. Computer network ate it.
    Suffice to say that some of those items listed aren’t even remotely un-Constitutional unless he actually acts without Congressional action. And a couple aren’t even un-Constitutional then.

    I agree with the anti-Trump stance. But there really need to be better arguments made, with less vitriol. imho
    (That’s directed as much at those you quote as at anyone here.)

  • Mike says:

    Well, his respect for the Constitution may be nonexistent, but at least his policies on taxes and tariffs should finish tanking the economy!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner