• 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
32,919
Reaction score
33,139
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.


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.]


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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 

 
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


Greencard holders

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

And even US citizens.


All without Due Process.

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


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


 
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.


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.]


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.

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.
 
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.
Only as it relates to those with whom they disagree.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
Wrong.
And if the words didn't apply to women and "minorities", then they wouldn't have come so far.
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”.
 
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.
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.
 
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.
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.
 
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”.
History is not an opinion. You should do some research. And actually elaborate on your counterargument if you want to debate.
 
History is not an opinion.
Not to most of us, it isn’t.
You should do some research. And actually elaborate on your counterargument if you want to debate.
Says the person making broad, unsubstantiated assertions.

You wrongly claimed;
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.
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.
And if the words didn't apply to women and "minorities", then they wouldn't have come so far.
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?
 
Not to most of us, it isn’t.

Says the person making broad, unsubstantiated assertions.

You wrongly claimed;

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.
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.
Women in some Muslim majority countries enjoy all of the above rights/privileges.
Name a muslim majority country that has the rights and privileges women in America do today.
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.
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?
Got anymore ignorance needing sorting out?
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.
 
This is incorrect. There were a few states such as Pennsylvania and New Jersey that granted certain women voting rights
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.
Women could and did in fact own property and could control their own money as long as they were unmarried.
Unmarried women, only.

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

Not your original false assertion that I refuted.
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?
Another attempted moving of goal posts fail.

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