What parts of the constitution has Trump violated? (split from Al Franken)

[rangerx]

5 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

So why did Monica add her name to #Me Too

How can anyone take you seriously with your "Dictator Trump" comments.  What part of the constitution has he violated as President?  What branch of government has he eliminated?

The epitome of hypocrisy.

By that logic, how can anyone take your narrative seriously or Trump's.

Trump makes derogatory statements about people EVERYDAY, yet nary a hint of admonishment.

So what is it, derogatory good or derogatory bad?

 

He's an insult to the 1st Amendment with his fake news nonsense and persecutes minorities by denying their right to protest peacefully.

You fail constitutional law, horribly.

[waitforufo]

17 minutes ago, rangerx said:

The epitome of hypocrisy.

By that logic, how can anyone take your narrative seriously or Trump's.

Trump makes derogatory statements about people EVERYDAY, yet nary a hint of admonishment.

So what is it, derogatory good or derogatory bad?

 

He's an insult to the 1st Amendment with his fake news nonsense and persecutes minorities by denying their right to protest peacefully.

You fail constitutional law, horribly.

I believe any president can say what ever they want.  It's part of that 1st Amendment thing you mention.  To call him a dictator, however, he would have to override or eliminate another branch of government.  Has he declared martial law?  Has he suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  What justification do you have for calling him a dictator?  In my opinion that comment is irrational hyperbole.

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I believe any president can say what ever they want.  It's part of that 1st Amendment thing you mention.  To call him a dictator, however, he would have to override or eliminate another branch of government.  Has he declared martial law?  Has he suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  What justification do you have for calling him a dictator?  In my opinion that comment is irrational hyperbole.

Anything I say is inconsequential. The things your president says are not.  Apparently you're unable to tell the difference.

Edited November 27, 2017 by rangerx

[waitforufo]

1 minute ago, rangerx said:

Anything I say is inconsequential. The things your president says are.  Apparently you're unable to tell the difference.

That doesn't answer my question.  Why do you claim Trump is a dictator?  Do you have any justification? 

[rangerx]

Just now, waitforufo said:

That doesn't answer my question.  Why do you claim Trump is a dictator?  Do you have any justification? 

Answer my questions first.

[waitforufo]

what exactly is your question?

[rangerx]

6 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

what exactly is your question?

Are you incapable of reading your own thread without asking additional ridiculous questions?

It's even on THIS page. Sheesh, troll much?

Edited November 28, 2017 by rangerx

[waitforufo]

1 hour ago, rangerx said:

So what is it, derogatory good or derogatory bad?.

Is it this one?  Because if it is could you please elaborate? 

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

So why did Monica add her name to #Me Too

How can anyone take you seriously with your "Dictator Trump" comments.  What part of the constitution has he violated as President?  What branch of government has he eliminated?

 

53 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I believe any president can say what ever they want.  It's part of that 1st Amendment thing you mention.  To call him a dictator, however, he would have to override or eliminate another branch of government.  Has he declared martial law?  Has he suspended the writ of habeas corpus?  What justification do you have for calling him a dictator?  In my opinion that comment is irrational hyperbole.

Can any Military service member say whatever they want or does the UCMJ takes presidents? Can anyone with a top secret security clearance exercise their "first Amendment" rights? I am not familiar with any definition for Dictator which restricts the title to someone who override or eliminated a govt branch.

[rangerx]

9 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Is it this one?  Because if it is could you please elaborate? 

Well... because you seem hopelessly lost on the context of my question, let me spell it out for you.

 

You have the audacity to admonish me for making a comment, which is my right, by suggesting no one can take me serious on any matter.

When on the other hand, your president talks shit every day, about everyone and anything that gets under his skin. By that logic, your president has gone around the bend, off the deep end and towards the moon in readily dismissible drivel.

What's worse, your complete absence of the inability or willingness to know the difference.

It's desperate whataboutism, phony gotchas or deflection, and little else.

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

I believe any president can say what ever they want.  It's part of that 1st Amendment thing you mention.  

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.^[1]"

^{https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution}

[Moontanman]

1 hour ago, waitforufo said:

That doesn't answer my question.  Why do you claim Trump is a dictator?  Do you have any justification? 

 

Trump is not a dictator, he is a child rapist, over a dozen women have come forward, two of them were raped at the same time by Trump when they were 12 and 13 years old. Trump has admitted... no actually bragged about sexual assault, but he claims they are all lies, the king of lies says they are lies... Anyone who still supports Trump is a sack of steaming monkey shit, then there are the tax scandals and the political scandals which amount to no less than treason. Troll on, maybe you will set the record for neg rep but I'd be ashamed of pretending to be so stupid... 

[swansont]

Quote

What part of the constitution has he violated as President?  

!

Moderator Note

This is from a post in the Al Franken thread. Since it's not possible to both split and copy, I have quoted it here for further discussion.

Further discussion of alleged dictatorship should take place in a new thread. 

 

[iNow]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

What part of the constitution has he violated as President?  

Not that facts matter... and we all know people will ignore or handwave this away to suit their own agendas... but the Emoluments clause, for one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause#Foreign_emoluments

Quote

The Title of Nobility Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution,^[1] that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without the consent of the United States Congress.

Also known as the Emoluments Clause, it was designed to shield the republican character of the United States against so-called "corrupting foreign influences." This shield is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.^[2]

^(snip)

The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has held

The language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified. See 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (the “drafters [of the Clause] intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability”). It prohibits those holding offices of profit or trust under the United States from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever” from “any . . . foreign State” unless Congress consents. U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (emphasis added). . . . The decision whether to permit exceptions that qualify the Clause’s absolute prohibition or that temper any harshness it may cause is textually committed to Congress, which may give consent to the acceptance of offices or emoluments otherwise barred by the Clause.^[17]

The word "emolument" has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant "profit," "benefit," or "advantage" of any kind.^[18] Because of the "sweeping and unqualified" nature of the constitutional prohibition, and in light of the more sophisticated understanding of conflicts of interest that developed after the Richard Nixon presidency, modern presidents have chosen to eliminate any risk of conflict of interest that may arise by choosing to vest their assets into a blind trust.^[15] 

As the Office of Legal Counsel has held, the Constitution is violated when the holder of an Office of Profit or Trust, like the President,^[19] receives money from a partnership or similar entity in which he has a stake, and the amount he receives is "a function of the amount paid to the [entity] by the foreign government."^[20] This is because such a setup would allow the entity to "in effect be a conduit for that government," and so the government official would be exposed to possible "undue influence and corruption by [the] foreign government[]."^[21] The Department of Defense has expressly held that "this same rationale applies to distributions from limited liability corporations."

 

Edited November 28, 2017 by iNow

[rangerx]

18 hours ago, waitforufo said:

Why do you claim Trump is a dictator?  Do you have any justification? 

I'm not sure of the precise statutes involved, I'm inclined to think that colluding with a hostile enemy to influence an election is a crime in America.

Nepotism, tax fraud, loan/grant fraud, misrepresentation, sexual assault. A disgrace to the office and buffoon to the world.

Obstruction of justice can't look good to a judge, either. Papadopolus has already plead guilty, Flynn appears to have rolled over. Kushner is next. (not to mention what we don't know but Mueller does) Irrefutable facts, my friend. Try as you might, but you'll never talk them into non-existence. I love the irony of the republican "lock them up"  meme. There will be orange suits issued before this is over, mark my words.

The walls are closing in on your turncoat NY liberal idol.

[waitforufo]

3 hours ago, iNow said:

Not that facts matter... and we all know people will ignore or handwave this away to suit their own agendas... but the Emoluments clause, for one.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_of_Nobility_Clause#Foreign_emoluments

The Emoluments clause has been a popular topic on Science Forums since Trump won the election, so I'm sure we are all familiar with it by now.  So you are claiming that Trump has violated this clause.  Do you have specific evidence?  Also this split from the Al Franken topic started out based on a claim that Donald Trump is a dictator.  If you have evidence that Trump has violated the Emoluments clause, do you contend that this makes Trump a Dictator?  Perhaps we can agree that claiming that Trump is a dictator is false?

12 minutes ago, rangerx said:

I'm not sure of the precise statutes involved, I'm inclined to think that colluding with a hostile enemy to influence an election is a crime in America.

Nepotism, tax fraud, loan/grant fraud, misrepresentation, sexual assault. A disgrace to the office and buffoon to the world.

Obstruction of justice can't look good to a judge, either. Papadopolus has already plead guilty, Flynn appears to have rolled over. Kushner is next. (not to mention what we don't know but Mueller does) Irrefutable facts, my friend. Try as you might, but you'll never talk them into non-existence. I love the irony of the republican "lock them up"  meme. There will be orange suits issued before this is over, mark my words.

The walls are closing in on your turncoat NY liberal idol.

 Has this collusion been proven?  Is there even enough evidence to make a legitimate claim?  

Nepotism is not illegal.  No fraud charges are pending. Neither are sexual assault charges.  Trump was elected with full public knowledge of sexual assault allegations.  Behavior in office is not a crime.

All of your post is opinion and speculation.  

Also nothing showing that Trump is a Dictator or even acting like one.

Yeah, I know you don't like him and wish he wasn't president of the US.  I felt the same way about Obama.  I would have felt the same way about Hillary Clinton.  I didn't have a hysterical meltdown over Obama and wouldn't have over Hillary. I would have merely been disappointed.    

 

 

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Also this split from the Al Franken topic started out based on a claim that Donald Trump is a dictator.  If you have evidence that Trump has violated the Emoluments clause, do you contend that this makes Trump a Dictator?  Perhaps we can agree that claiming that Trump is a dictator is false?

!

Moderator Note

I've asked that you discuss this in a separate thread.

 

[rangerx]

6 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

 Has this collusion been proven?  Is there even enough evidence to make a legitimate claim?

 

 

32 minutes ago, rangerx said:

Papadopolus has already plead guilty, Flynn appears to have rolled over. Kushner is next. (not to mention what we don't know but Mueller does) Irrefutable facts, my friend.

So the Papadopolus guilty plea doesn't exist then? Flynn rolled over for what... parking tickets, jaywalking?

What are these charges and plea agreements then? Fake news? Liberal conspiracy?

18 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

I didn't have a hysterical meltdown over Obama and wouldn't have over Hillary. I would have merely been disappointed.

Revisionist history, from the one who hysterically went on ad nauseam about Hillary and Obama's perceived crimes and called for incarceration in every breath.

Apparently you have no concept of the shoe on the other foot. I suppose that's hard to grasp whilst overly preoccupied with that chip on your shoulder.

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

The Emoluments clause has been a popular topic on Science Forums since Trump won the election, so I'm sure we are all familiar with it by now.  So you are claiming that Trump has violated this clause.  Do you have specific evidence? 

Yes

You'll just ignore that, too and move the goalposts once again, though.

[waitforufo]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Yes

You'll just ignore that, too and move the goalposts once again, though.

Well please post it.  I might surprise you.

[rangerx]

19 hours ago, waitforufo said:

What justification do you have for calling him a dictator?

"I'm the only one that matters" D. Trump.

If Obama or Hillary said anything like that, you'd shit a brick.

[iNow]

5 minutes ago, waitforufo said:

Well please post it.  I might surprise you.

First, I'd like you to acknowledge that much of this is still under investigation and it would disingenuous to assume the information available to us today is ALL of the information available at all.

Second, I will stipulate on my side that much of this is a matter of interpretation and subject to decision by the courts.

That said, there are a few of his dealings and interests that seem pretty clearly to be unconstitutional per the above referenced emoluments clause. Perhaps you'll arrive at a different conclusion from me, but it seems pretty plain that a valid case exists.

A few samples and overviews below, but there are clearly more I could offer if you're genuine in your desire to learn more:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/looking-at-the-latest-emoluments-suit-against-trump

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-crew.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/emoluments-clause-used-sue-trump

[waitforufo]

10 minutes ago, iNow said:

First, I'd like you to acknowledge that much of this is still under investigation and it would disingenuous to assume the information available to us today is ALL of the information available at all.

Second, I will stipulate on my side that much of this is a matter of interpretation and subject to decision by the courts.

That said, there are a few of his dealings and interests that seem pretty clearly to be unconstitutional per the above referenced emoluments clause. Perhaps you'll arrive at a different conclusion from me, but it seems pretty plain that a valid case exists.

A few samples and overviews below, but there are clearly more I could offer if you're genuine in your desire to learn more:

https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/looking-at-the-latest-emoluments-suit-against-trump

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/08/donald-trump-conflicts-of-interests/508382/

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/06/donald-trump-emoluments-clause-crew.html

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/emoluments-clause-used-sue-trump

Interesting but I appreciate all your caveats prior to your links.  My guess is however, that if Trump was found in violation of the Emoluments clause he would simply have to reimburse the the foreign government involved in the transactions.   

As you said, time will tell.

 

[John Cuthber]

2 hours ago, waitforufo said:

My guess is however, that if Trump was found in violation of the Emoluments clause he would simply have to reimburse the the foreign government involved in the transactions.   

So, if a thief, when caught, gives back the stuff he stole, that's OK then?

 

 

[MigL]

Delusions of grandeur do not make you a dictator, RangerX.
The fact that he's been able to accomplish little of his original agenda, and has been foiled at every turn by a few of the remaining  dedicated politicians left ( Democrats as well as some Republicans, not the a*s kissers ) proves he isn't.

I'm not familiar enough with the American Constitution to say which parts he has violated, if any.

I can say that he has violated most aspects of human decency.