• 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!

The Trump Administration’s War on the Constitution

NWRatCon

Eco**Social Marketeer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 6, 2019
Messages
33,871
Reaction score
34,058
Location
PNW
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Since the beginning of the administration, it has been at war with the Constitution. That is no exaggeration. Federal courts have already identified deliberate violations of the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, Articles I, II, III, IV, and V. And efforts are underway to obviate several more. They've abrogated contracts, ignored treaties, tramped all over Congress' authority, attacked the courts and ignored State jurisdiction. This is not how a "normal" administration acts. Hell, this is not how normal Americans act, and we should see it as it is.

The Constitution of the United States: A Transcription

Note: The following text is a transcription of the Constitution as it was inscribed by Jacob Shallus on parchment (the document on display in the Rotunda at the National Archives Museum). The spelling and punctuation reflect the original.
www.archives.gov

According to Trump Administration officials, criticizing Donald Trump is a state offense:

"Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered diplomats to scrutinize the social media posts of some visa applicants. A cable sent to overseas missions on March 25, stated that applicants can be denied a visa if their behavior or actions show they bear “a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles).” [Only one "citizen" really counts.]

Nobel Laureate and Ex-Leader of Costa Rica Says U.S. Revoked His Visa

Óscar Arias Sánchez, twice president of Costa Rica, has been a vocal critic of President Trump, describing him as acting like a “Roman emperor.”
www.nytimes.com

Rights are removed without process. They're jailing individuals without charges or process. Trump is directly (and illegally) attacking any critics or anyone he sees as his opposition.

This thread is going to be an effort at cataloging those abuses. All such entries are welcome. It is hard to do it alone. Discussion is, too, but not excuses.
 
It's not so much that the far right hates the constitution - although it is obvious that they do - it is more that they hate the very idea of freedom itself.
 
Luce said:
It's not so much that the far right hates the constitution - although it is obvious that they do - it is more that they hate the very idea of freedom itself.
Click to expand...
This is what I find so confounding - the willingness to sacrifice their own freedoms just to "get back" at "the other", most of which have nothing to do with the subject. It's ironic because "American culture" is predicated on these freedoms.
 
NWRatCon said:
This is what I find so confounding - the willingness to sacrifice their own freedoms just to "get back" at "the other", most of which have nothing to do with the subject. It's ironic because "American culture" is predicated on these freedoms.
Click to expand...
That's where the face-eating leopards get funny, right?

I remember back in Trump's first term, some ancient hillbilly woman was whining at the reporter, "He's hurting the wrong people." They literally can't see it coming, because they are by nature unable to see second order effects.
 
The reality of the situation is that the Constitution, Liberty, Freedom, laws, rights, etc...was great...right up until the pesky women and minorities started saying "wait, what about us"

MAGAism is about rolling things back to when America was "great"...meaning, BEFORE all these uppity women, minorities, etc...stood up and demanded the words in those founding documents applied to EVERYONE.
 
I realized that I started this thread under the First Amendment section, even though the OP is broader. To comply with posting guidelines, I'll move the OP there and focus this discussion on Speech issues - which will be quite extensive on its own.
 

Naval Academy removes nearly 400 books from library in new DEI purge ordered by Hegseth's office

U.S. officials say the U.S. Naval Academy has removed nearly 400 books from its library after being told by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office to review and get rid of books that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
apnews.com

The Trump Administration’s War on Activists Is Escalating

ICE’s detention of a Washington state union organizer, alongside other threats to activists, raises the question of how far the Trump team will go to stifle dissent.
newrepublic.com
 
There are several fronts in the administration's war. First, there are the attacks on foreigners - immigrants, both legal and unauthorized, and even just visitors - see

Weekslong lockups of European tourists at US borders spark fears of traveling to America

U.S. authorities have arrested and detained Canadian and European travelers at U.S. borders in recent weeks.
apnews.com

Greencard holders

https://www.cnn.com/2025/04/01/us/mahmoud-khalil-columbia-student-louisiana/index.html

And even US citizens.

Protecting The Meaning And Value Of American Citizenship

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1.
www.whitehouse.gov

All without Due Process.

Second, Universities, research facilities and even corporations and other organizations that rely on existing contracts for their existence.

The Trump administration is battling higher education

The Trump administration has disrupted the funding pipeline universities have relied on for research, at times directly targeting select schools.
www.yahoo.com

And Law firms and news outlets it views as "oppositional" - e.g., doing their jobs.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-administration-battling-higher-education-005338397.html

White House says it will decide which news outlets cover Trump

Move comes a day after administration won ruling allowing it to bar AP from the Oval Office and Air Force One
www.theguardian.com
 

An 'excuse' might be an observation, that given the Constitution expressly grants Congress the power to create naturalization laws, Congress has the authority to regulate who enters the USA. Thus, reviewing the social media posts of prospecting entrants could be reasonable and would not be an abuse.
 
Luce said:
It's not so much that the far right hates the constitution - although it is obvious that they do - it is more that they hate the very idea of freedom itself.
Click to expand...
Only as it relates to those with whom they disagree.
 
Women are in the Quran, yet women in America at the time of the founding of this country had more freedom and rights then than women in the Islamic world ever had. And if the words didn't apply to women and "minorities", then they wouldn't have come so far.
 
13eastxpharoh said:
Women are in the Quran, yet women in America at the time of the founding of this country had more freedom and rights then than women in the Islamic world ever had.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
13eastxpharoh said:
And if the words didn't apply to women and "minorities", then they wouldn't have come so far.
Click to expand...
Not at the start of the United States, and not for very many years, decades and even centuries for many things that are now counted as “rights”.
 
There could be a valid argument for reviewing online activities of foreigners wanting to enter the U.S..

Where the conflict lies is based on what online activity does DHS or the State Department decide to refuse entry?

Recently, a number of people have been refused entry for simply posting content critical of U.S. government officials and policies.

That is unacceptable.
 
From Abigail Adams' letter to John Adams, "Remember the Ladies," April 5, 1776

Tho we felicitate ourselves, we sympathize with those who are trembling least the Lot of Boston should be theirs. But they cannot be in similar circumstances unless pusilanimity and cowardise should take possession of them. They have time and warning given them to see the Evil and shun it.—I long to hear that you have declared an independancy—and by the way in the new Code of Laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make I desire you would Remember the Ladies, and be more generous and favourable to them than your ancestors. Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the Husbands. Remember all Men would be tyrants if they could. If perticuliar care and attention is not paid to the Laidies we are determined to foment a Rebelion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation.
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Wrong.

Not at the start of the United States, and not for very many years, decades and even centuries for many things that are now counted as “rights”.
Click to expand...
History is not an opinion. You should do some research. And actually elaborate on your counterargument if you want to debate.
 
13eastxpharoh said:
History is not an opinion.
Click to expand...
Not to most of us, it isn’t.
13eastxpharoh said:
You should do some research. And actually elaborate on your counterargument if you want to debate.
Click to expand...
Says the person making broad, unsubstantiated assertions.

You wrongly claimed;
13eastxpharoh said:
Women are in the Quran, yet women in America at the time of the founding of this country had more freedom and rights then than women in the Islamic world ever had.
Click to expand...
At the time the United States was founded, women could not vote (only white land owning men could vote), own property, control their own money, or sign legal documents.

Women in some Muslim majority countries enjoy all of the above rights/privileges.
13eastxpharoh said:
And if the words didn't apply to women and "minorities", then they wouldn't have come so far.
Click to expand...
Easily, the more ignorant of your to ignorant claims.

At the time our Constitution was ratified slavery was legal, as was indentured servitude, and women were expected to be subservient to their fathers/husbands demands.

Many of the “rights” granted women and minorities weren’t codified into our Constitution and through laws until very long after the foundational document was codified.


Got anymore ignorance needing sorting out?
 
RaleBulgarian said:
Not to most of us, it isn’t.

Says the person making broad, unsubstantiated assertions.

You wrongly claimed;
Click to expand...

RaleBulgarian said:
At the time the United States was founded, women could not vote (only white land owning men could vote), own property, control their own money, or sign legal documents.
Click to expand...
This is incorrect. There were a few states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey that granted certain women voting rights Women could and did in fact own property and could control their own money as long as they were unmarried.
RaleBulgarian said:
Women in some Muslim majority countries enjoy all of the above rights/privileges.
Click to expand...
Name a muslim majority country that has the rights and privileges women in America do today.
Did women not not protest to gain some of rights? Did they not use the right to demonstration and freedom of speech and press to gain votes for all women and argue for rights?
RaleBulgarian said:
Got anymore ignorance needing sorting out?
Click to expand...
You believe in myths and clearly have not taking any history courses nor read or researched anything you are talking about. Check your own ignorance.
 
13eastxpharoh said:
This is incorrect. There were a few states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey that granted certain women voting rights
Click to expand...
Our Constitution was ratified on June 21st, 1788.

Women in New Jersey first were allowed to vote in 1790. In New Jersey, women gained the right to vote in 1920.
13eastxpharoh said:
Women could and did in fact own property and could control their own money as long as they were unmarried.
Click to expand...
Unmarried women, only.

* What about those minority rights you wrongly claimed?
13eastxpharoh said:
Name a muslim majority country that has the rights and privileges women in America do today.
Click to expand...
Attempted moving of goal posts fail.

Not your original false assertion that I refuted.
13eastxpharoh said:
Did women not not protest to gain some of rights? Did they not use the right to demonstration and freedom of speech and press to gain votes for all women and argue for rights?
Click to expand...
Another attempted moving of goal posts fail.

Irrelevant to your original false assertion.
13eastxpharoh said:
You believe in myths and clearly have not taking any history courses nor read or researched anything you are talking about.
Click to expand...
^ All you @13eastxpharoh
13eastxpharoh said:
Check your own ignorance.
Click to expand...
Says the one insisting on advertising his own ignorance.
 
Last edited:
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…