• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is Trump violating his oath of office?

I

independentusa

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 10, 2016
Messages
14,607
Reaction score
9,305
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
In his oath he vows to uphold the constitution and laws of our country. I am not sure about the constitution, but he is certainly not upholding the laws when he openly violates them by ordering the Treasury department to withhold his tax returns. I would think that at some point that even Trumpsters would see the light that this president not only doe not know anything about our constitution and our laws, but feels they do no apply to him. I am sorry to say, that the trumpsters though will never see it and that brings shame to our country. I wonder what the Trumpsters will do when the courts rule that Trump has to follow the laws and he refuses.
 
Is Trump violating his oath of office?

Does a bear poop in the woods?
 
Trump supporters will only deflect to Hillary or Obama and will never concur that Trump has abused power, is mentally incapable of running the country, cares nothing at all about our Constitution, cares more about who his lawyer is than the law, and only wants to win at any cost, even at the cost of democracy for this country. Trump has one oath and that's to himself.

 
Last edited:
No, the House doesn't have a legitimate legislative purpose. They're out of line. But then, they're democrats, and always grabbing for more than they're entitled to.
 
humbolt said:
No, the House doesn't have a legitimate legislative purpose. They're out of line. But then, they're democrats, and always grabbing for more than they're entitled to.
Click to expand...

What is the bolded meant to convey?
 

Honestly, Trump's best defense for not upholding the Constitution is that he's never read it and he actually doesn't understand it even on a basic level. He doesn't understand the concepts of federal funding or governance.
 
In my opinion almost everything Trump does violates his oath of office.

But that's based on my opinion that he never meant a word of that oath, and broke it as soon as it was convenient.
 
Risky Thicket said:
Honestly, Trump's best defense for not upholding the Constitution is that he's never read it and he actually doesn't understand it even on a basic level. He doesn't understand the concepts of federal funding or governance.
Click to expand...
When did that become a defense?

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
 
The Mark said:
When did that become a defense?

Ignorance of the law is not a defense.
Click to expand...



I think he stated that that was his best defense, not that it was a legit defense, which, of course, it is not.
 
humbolt said:
No, the House doesn't have a legitimate legislative purpose. They're out of line. But then, they're democrats, and always grabbing for more than they're entitled to.
Click to expand...

Wut...? So you're choosing to ignore the Constitutionally mandated, legitimate legislative purposes of the House? This must be why you're such a huge Trump fan, you hate the Constitution and the way our government was designed to function.
 
It can be argued that he is indeed upholding the law - the Fourth Amendment:

 
Risky Thicket said:
Cognitive dysfunction may be.
Click to expand...
If he's cognitively dysfunctional, he definitely shouldn't be president.

But I expect the Republicans would keep him on and pretend they didn't know.
 
In fact he is defending the Constitution and Bill Of Rights both in terms of:

1.) the separation of powers ("executive privilege") and
2.) rights to be secure in his papers as a private citizen.

The Democrats in Congress on that committee are spitting on both the Constitution and the Bill Of Rights.
 
Last edited:
Bullseye said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Just try withholding your tax returns and see what happens. That has been tried by people including those who called themselves the Posse Comitatis and they all ended up in jail. So yes, once you send your tax returns into the government, they belong to them.
 
Bullseye said:
Prove it.
Click to expand...

Section 6103 of the federal code allows a number of government agents to use the information without ever asking your permission. In 1925, congress even allowed the publishing of tax information with some limitations resulting in a supreme court case called US v. Dickey... In US v. Dickey, the court made clear that congress determines how tax information is treated...

United States v. Dickey :: 268 U.S. 378 (1925) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center

None of that would be possible if tax information was not government property.
 

All of that has been tried and proven to be false. As far as using executive privilege to stop those who have already talked to Mueller and are part of his report, that horse has left the stable. And tax returns are government property and the law requires them to be given to Congress when requested. That has been approved by SCOTUS during the Watergate.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
Wut...? So you're choosing to ignore the Constitutionally mandated, legitimate legislative purposes of the House? This must be why you're such a huge Trump fan, you hate the Constitution and the way our government was designed to function.
Click to expand...

Where does the Constitution speak to this issue of tax returns?
 


From NEW YORK COURT DISBARS ROY COHN ON CHARGES OF UNETHICAL CONDUCT:
During [his] tempestuous career, Mr. Cohn has been indicted and acquitted three times.​


  • [*=1]A New York State court [on June 23, 1986] ordered Roy M. Cohn [unanimously] disbarred, calling his conduct in four legal matters ''unethical,'' ''unprofessional'' and, in one case, ''particularly reprehensible.''

    • [*=1]The cases cited date back as far as the 1960's and involved these accusations against Mr. Cohn

    [*=1]That he did not pay back a loan made to him by a client until disbarment proceedings began.

    • [*=1]The court found that Mr. Cohn had failed to repay fully a 90-day renewable loan of $100,000 from a client, Iva Schlesinger, until disciplinary proceedings began against him in 1984. The loan was made in 1967.

    [*=1]That he and his firm misappropriated and misused escrowed property of a client.

    • [*=1]The court found that Mr. Cohn and his law firm had improperly ''dissipated'' $219,000 in funds that it had agreed to preserve in an escrow account in 1971 for a client, the Pied Piper Yacht Charters Corporation. Among the assets was a boat, the Defiance, which sank off the Florida coast, according to the decision, while under charter to Mr. Cohn's law firm.That he lied on his application for the District of Columbia bar.

    [*=1]The court, in its conclusion, said, ''Avoiding repayment of a financial obligation to a client, violating an escrow order, procuring execution of a testamentary instrument under circumstances of misrepresentation, and omitting judicial findings of misconduct from a bar admission application are all serious charges which reflect adversely on the legal profession and the reputation of those who practice before the bar.

    ''One need not be a lawyer to recognize the impropriety of such conduct. For an attorney practicing for nearly 40 years in this state, such misconduct is inexcusable, notwithstanding an impressive array of character witnesses who testified in mitigation."
    [*=1]Because of the statute of limitations and technical reasons, Mr. Gentile, the disciplinary committee counsel, said, it is unlikely that Mr. Cohn will be prosecuted criminally as a result of any of the allegations that formed the basis of the court's decision.

Trump all but apes to a tee Cohn's reprobate character and behavior.
 
independentusa said:
All of that has been tried and proven to be false. As far as using executive privilege to stop those who have already talked to Mueller and are part of his report, that horse has left the stable.
Click to expand...
Says who?
And tax returns are government property and the law requires them to be given to Congress when requested. That has been approved by SCOTUS during the Watergate.
Click to expand...
Link?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…