• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Does the U.S. President have a duty to "support" the Constitution of the United States.

F1fan

Veteran Member
Has that not been Trumps playbook from get go?
He has a huge motivation to delay and delay some more. If he can win the 2024 election (which means he can secure the electoral college, not a popular vote) then he can use his position as president to avoid legal accountability. So far the polls suggest he has adequate support to do this. He only lost in 2020 by 42,000 votes in 4 swing states. That's why he was so aggressive in trying to get Georgia election officials to change their vote count and give him an additional 11,780 votes that he didn't get. How he avoids the Georgia case is the supremacy claus, and those charges get set aside until he is a citizen again. But he will have four years to stop the 2028 election. One claim was that two terms only counts when consecutive, so he can run again. That's incorrect, but it tells us what he is willing to do.
Keep it tangled up in court till his accuser runs out of time, patience and or money?
In these cases it is states and the USA, so they have time and money. He is counting on being president and being able to use the office to avoid accountability. He has already stated what he intends to do, and that is dismantle the DOJ, FBI, and other agencies that follow the constitution for the sake of justice. He intends to arrest and prosecute anyone who was critical of him. He may not be able to get convictions since there are so many ethical judges and defense lawyers, but he can ruin lives with the DOJ, meaning he can disrupt lives and cost these folks money for lawyers. But there won't be any actual crimes committed, just accusations and a legal process. That would be punishment enough. And due process has to run its course, even if there is a corrupt DOJ.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
He has a huge motivation to delay and delay some more. If he can win the 2024 election (which means he can secure the electoral college, not a popular vote) then he can use his position as president to avoid legal accountability. So far the polls suggest he has adequate support to do this. He only lost in 2020 by 42,000 votes in 4 swing states. That's why he was so aggressive in trying to get Georgia election officials to change their vote count and give him an additional 11,780 votes that he didn't get. How he avoids the Georgia case is the supremacy claus, and those charges get set aside until he is a citizen again. But he will have four years to stop the 2028 election. One claim was that two terms only counts when consecutive, so he can run again. That's incorrect, but it tells us what he is willing to do.

In these cases it is states and the USA, so they have time and money. He is counting on being president and being able to use the office to avoid accountability. He has already stated what he intends to do, and that is dismantle the DOJ, FBI, and other agencies that follow the constitution for the sake of justice. He intends to arrest and prosecute anyone who was critical of him. He may not be able to get convictions since there are so many ethical judges and defense lawyers, but he can ruin lives with the DOJ, meaning he can disrupt lives and cost these folks money for lawyers. But there won't be any actual crimes committed, just accusations and a legal process. That would be punishment enough. And due process has to run its course, even if there is a corrupt DOJ.
The charges against him have been a long time coming. That probably played a large part in his first run.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Conservatives support The Constitution...until it becomes an inconvenience (such as the establishment clause for the 1st amendment). Then they wipe their *** with it.
Following the actual words in the Constitution actually is supporting it. :rolleyes: You're just peeved because what you think is in it isn't.
 

Quintessence

Consults with Trees
Staff member
Premium Member
This made me laugh.

It reminds me of the very rare occasions when a student asks me if they can remove a grade from their permanent record because they don't want it impacting their GPA. It's like they don't understand what a permanent record is, much like these folks don't understand what supporting something means. :laughing:
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
This made me laugh.

It reminds me of the very rare occasions when a student asks me if they can remove a grade from their permanent record because they don't want it impacting their GPA. It's like they don't understand what a permanent record is, much like these folks don't understand what supporting something means. :laughing:
I had a stident and his parents that tried that, and I kindly told them that I can't do that.
 

Shaul

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
Presidents aren’t above the law. Your sympathies for the criminal ex-president is not good for your reputation.
And Presidents that haven't broken the law are not criminals. And people that claim other people are criminals who aren't are slanderers. My reputation is fine. Yours needs a check.
 

metis

aged ecumenical anthropologist
It's pathetic that some people still support the twice impeached insurrectionist who also claimed that under the Constitution he could do anything he wanted as president. And there were some Republicans who also had enough moral fiber to also vote for his impeachment.
 

F1fan

Veteran Member
And Presidents that haven't broken the law are not criminals.
Correct. Trump and Nixon are not in this category. Nixon got pardoned by Ford, so he got off. Trump? No one is going to pardon him. He will try to pardon himself if he can somehow win the electoral college system. He won't win if the American voter gets its **** together. You can't tell what citizens will do. Of course being pardoned means admitting to criminal acts.
And people that claim other people are criminals who aren't are slanderers.
Not when the accusations are credible. There is massive evidence available to the public of Trump's criminal acts, and the indictments were based on this evidence. Many experts in law acknowledge he is in big trouble, including Bill Barr.
My reputation is fine.
Where? In MAGA world, perhaps.
Yours needs a check.
Make it payable to Johnny Rocket.
 

McBell

Unbound
And Presidents that haven't broken the law are not criminals.
Well, that leaves out Trump.
He has been found guilty of fraud.
Just waiting to see how much his criminal activity will cost him.

And people that claim other people are criminals who aren't are slanderers.
Meaning no one has slandered Trump.

My reputation is fine. Yours needs a check.
If you giving out checks, make mine out to "cash".
 
Top