Donald Trump

Donald Trump: The Constitution Buster

Six ways he'll assault core rights.

|

Former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a yuge Trump booster, has been telling fellow Republicans that they should vote for Trump because he's the "only candidate" who

Trump Mouth
Todd Krainin

would "uphold the Constitution." That's a laugh given that Trump is less wedded to the Constitution than he was to his first two wives. There is not an amendment that he has left unmolested. Consider just six of his many ridiculous proposals:

1. He wants to give cop killers the death penalty

Trump has declared himself the "law and order" candidate. To fulfill that promise, he pledged last December that one of the first things he'd do if elected is sign an executive order mandating the death penalty for cop killers.

There are many constitutional problems with this suggestion, starting with the fact that capital punishment is a state function. Forget executive mandates—even Congress cannot require it. Heck, Congress can't even force states to repeal the death penalty. The only authority that a president enjoys when it comes to sentencing, as The Atlantic's Matt Ford has noted, is rolling back sentences or pardoning people for federal crimes—not state crimes. The president can't impose any penalty. That is the job of judges and juries.

Any federal death penalty would eviscerate federalism and dilute the role of courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court ruled against a death penalty mandate in Woodson v. North Carolina, noting that it would be a violation of the Fifth Amendment's due process protections and 14th Amendment's due process and equal treatment protections. Why? Because judges and juries have to be able to take mitigating or aggravating circumstances into account when they hand out sentences.

For example, what if someone shot a cop accidentally? Or in self-defense? Should they be treated like the Dallas shooter who targeted cops? Conversely, suspending these considerations for cop killers but not killers of ordinary citizens would not only devalue the lives of cop killers, but also the victims of other killers, both of which would fly in the face of the Constitution's guarantee of equal treatment under the law.

2. He wants to strip some Latino Americans of their citizenship

Arguably, no group has been vilified and maligned by Trump more than Latinos. His demagogic accusations that Mexicans are "rapists and criminals" launched his candidacy. And he has made throwing out illegal immigrants already in the country and stanching the flow of new ones his core campaign promise.

To even find all 11 million undocumented immigrants would mean racial profiling on a grand scale, which would be constitutionally problematic. But along with them he also plans to send their American children—whom Trump derides as "anchor babies" — packing. This would require stripping them of their citizenship first—which the Constitution does not give the government the right to do, not even for proven terrorists. Not just that, Trump cannot withhold citizenship for future "anchor babies" without a constitutional amendment to scrap the 14th Amendment that extends citizenship rights to everyone born on American soil except for children of foreign diplomats and American Indians (who belong to sovereign tribes).

3. He wants to seize the assets of foreign nationals

His second immigration objective—stopping the flow of future illegal immigrants by building a border wall and forcing Mexico to pay for it—is even more ill conceived. In a memo fleshing out this plan, Trump says that as president he'd issue a mandate barring those in America unlawfully from transferring money abroad. This would stop remittances to Mexico instantly. Then he would use restoring the flow of this money as leverage to demand a one-time payment of $5 billion to $10 billion from Mexico.

As South Texas College of Law's Josh Blackman notes in National Review (not a publication known for its love for immigrants, incidentally), Trump's plan will require money-transfer companies such as Western Union to verify the identity and lawful presence in America of any individual who wants to remit money anywhere in the world. As a result, "billions of dollars already in American bank accounts held by foreign nationals would no longer be withdrawn," points out Blackman. "The money will effectively be seized and impounded within our borders by the federal government, without any due process of law or statutory authority."

This would be de facto nationalization of foreign assets of a magnitude not even attempted by Hugo Chavez-style Latin American potentates. But what's also troubling about Trump's "harebrained scheme," as Blackman calls it, is that it would usurp Congress' constitutional power over the regulation of foreign commerce. That he could find lawyers who would actually sign off on it is shocking — and these are the folks who Trump would use to pack up courts and the Justice Department, something that would do far more damage to an independent judiciary than anything Hillary Clinton has been able to come up with.

4. He wants to force Muslims to register in a database

Trump has played on fears about Islamic terrorism to float a slew of anti-Muslim proposals, including forcing Muslims to register with the government so that it could create a database and keep track of them—an appalling, daft, unworkable, and unconstitutional plan.

Trump has not fleshed out whether he would require only Muslim immigrants to register or also Muslim citizens. Either way, it would violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because it targets individuals based on their religion. Worse, tracking individuals not because of their conduct but membership in a group is tantamount to guilt by association. It eviscerates the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal treatment under the law to every individual.

5. He wants to silence his media critics

Even as a businessman, Trump has sought to make it as costly as possible for his critics to exercise their free speech rights. He sued author Timothy O'Brien for $5 billion for suggesting that he wasn't a billionaire.

Over the last year, Trump has threatened to sue the online petition campaign demanding Macy's drop his clothing line after he called Mexicans "rapists and criminals." He sent Cruz a cease-and-desist letter threatening to sue for libel. Cruz's crime? Running an accurate ad showing Trump saying that he was pro-choice. Trump hilariously demanded that the Federal Communication Commission fine National Review editor Rich Lowry for commenting that Carly Fiorina had "cut his balls off" for making misogynistic statements.

Most troubling, however, is what he has threatened to do should he become president. He says he'd not only loosen libel laws to allow public officials to sue the press more easily, but also look for other ways to discipline critics. For example, he has threatened to go after Washington Post publisher Jeff Bezos, who founded Amazon, on anti-trust grounds for publishing "wrong" stories about him. But anti-trust laws were meant to thwart monopolies. If he can use this law to silence critics, it is beyond horrifying to imagine what havoc he'll wreak when he has the entire federal apparatus—the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, the FCC—at his disposal.

6. He wants to crack down on judges who disagree with him

More ominous than how a President Trump would treat the media is what he'll do to a non-cooperative judiciary. He attacked Judge Gonzalo Curiel's Mexican heritage when the judge refused to issue a summary judgment throwing out a class action lawsuit alleging fraud by Trump University. Worse, he gleefully contemplated going after the judge if he were elected president in November.

Politicians criticizing court rulings that go against their policies is par for the course. But threatening to use the political apparatus against judges because they refuse to do his bidding on a personal matter is so beyond the pale that even Republican House Speaker Paul Ryan, who has tried to be diplomatic when commenting about Trump, rebuked him in no uncertain terms.

This is far from an exhaustive list of Trump's constitutional assaults. All of them betray Trump's contempt for federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, and basic American political norms. They also show just how ruthless he will be in discrediting anyone or anything that comes in the way of his political ambitions. As far as he is concerned, the law is useful when it can be wielded as a weapon against opponents and a useless triviality worth ignoring when it can't.

This column originally appeared in The Week.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

95 responses to “Donald Trump: The Constitution Buster

  1. Oh god here we go. And of course it’s Dalmia. Let the salty tears flow.

    1. Her grasp on the contents of the constitution appears tenuous at best. Plus she’s just another idiot orogtard.

  2. Dalmia and Suderman in one day. Interesting. Very interesting.

    1. Very interesting? Don’t know about that…maybe just mildly interesting.

  3. “This would be de facto nationalization of foreign assets of a magnitude not even attempted by Hugo Chavez-style Latin American potentates”

    Doesn’t the great and tolerant Denmark seize assets of immigrants that receive benefits?

  4. To even find all 11 million undocumented immigrants would mean racial profiling on a grand scale, which would be constitutionally problematic.

    Lolwut? This is deranged even by recent standards.

    Next thing we’re going to hear is that Trump’s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate is transphobic.

    1. Uncontrolled immigration into the United States is a constitutional right, I guess. Because reasons.

    2. Trump’s proposal to cut the corporate tax rate is transphobic.

      now you’re just feeding them ideas

  5. Re-posting cause I am dick:

    Some Data:

    Past Month on Reason
    allinurl: Clinton OR Clinton’s OR Hillary OR Hillary’s source:Reason.
    Results – 32 articles, some expository most opinion (none I found non critical)

    allinurl: Trump OR Trump’s OR Donald OR Donald’s’s source:Reason
    Reuslts – 53 articles, some expository most opinion (none I found non critical)

    Past Three Months on Reason
    Clinton – 78
    Trump – 99

    Does this demonstrate a leaning or focus? Yes. Is it a critical failure of the journalistic integrity of an ostensibly libertarian magazine? FUCK NO!

    While Suderman may need a Midol and Valium, the Trump nuts need to smoke a few dozen bowls…or get some edibles. And if you come to Colorado I promise I will take you to some awesome places to do that.

    1. The real tragedy is the Johnson numbers, 14 and 34, for the same time period.

      1. Couldn’t you just check what Reason’s own “Tags” aggregate?

      2. The reason i say this is because…. still scanning… your numbers don’t line up with the actual tracking of their tags. at all. you seem to be capturing significantly less than half.

        1. The search is a URL search of those terms. Reason article headlines are in the URLs. I figured it is more accurate than tags. Tags will be much more numerous.

          1. “”I figured it is more accurate than tags””

            I’m pointing out that its not remotely accurate.

          2. Additionally – yes, tags will overlap and capture a lot more incidental coverage.

            but its a better source of actual “stories/posts about each candidate”. Given that the numbers are “less than 100”, it shouldn’t be such a struggle to eyeball the material to clarify what’s what.

            Don’t worry, i’m doing it on your behalf just to make a point.

            1. Don’t worry, i’m doing it on your behalf just to make a point.

              good, see data can be fun…as I stated some are expository but most are opinion and I found (not exhaustive search) none in support of either.

              As for tags being more accurate, I don’t see possibly how. In a GJ article or a Gay Pride article or whatever, “Hillary said” and a quote will have a tag of Hillary. That creates too much chaff and not enough wheat for me to care. The article headlines are a better indicator in my opinion.

              1. Just as a thought-experiment in the meantime…

                …ponder this =

                regardless of how you slice it there’s been a disparity of attention paid to “trump” in the last few months. (and based on the scan i’m doing, its pretty damn heavy)

                yet… in that same time period, you’ve had *the other candidate*….investigated by the FBI, and caught manipulating the primary-process in collusion with the DNC and major media-outlets. Basically caught in multiple instances of criminal behavior, revealing widespread institutional corruption and establishment self-dealing.

                i think even if the coverage were “balanced”, it would be a sign of something being very fucking wrong.

                1. you’ve had *the other candidate*….investigated by the FBI, and caught manipulating the primary-process in collusion with the DNC and major media-outlets.

                  yeah, but Trump was mean to someone who lost a child in a war that Trump has no connection to.

              2. In a GJ article or a Gay Pride article or whatever, “Hillary said” and a quote will have a tag of Hillary. . that creates too much chaff and not enough wheat for me to care. The article headlines are a better indicator in my opinion.

                On the former – no. because you can just then filter them out after the fact.

                on the latter, no, because you’re losing a huge proportion of coverage. URLs are terrible source to search.

                1. Example =

                  Trump versus Hillary vs. “Fuck Em Both” articles, 6.29-8.02

                  ~70 trump, 35-40 Hillary (depending on overlap re: email coverage), 10-12 “Fuck em both”

                  i don’t think the 2-to-1 coverage is new, tho the volume has amped up.

                  I also filtered out a lot of incidental stuff which were ‘tagged’ but which weren’t really saying anything pro/con about the candidates.

                  Scanning through the story headlines/emphasis does provide some view into the nature of the respective coverage. not only is there 2X as much Trump-froth, its generally more hysterical in tone, and based on whatever contrived outrage-du-jour happens to be circulating.

                  The hillary stuff by contrast tends to repeat some of the same basic criticisms over and over.

                  I think if you included all of june, it would probably increase the clinton share simply due to the volume of investigation-related stuff.

                  1. I also filtered out a lot of incidental stuff which were ‘tagged’ but which weren’t really saying anything pro/con about the candidates.

                    Scanning through the story headlines/emphasis does provide some view into the nature of the respective coverage.

                    And this is why I went off headlines. Not saying my methodology was perfect, nobody provided me with an intern. I did it in like 5 min. To prove a point. RC made a comment that it was 5x. I (and you) have demonstrated it is barely 2x. Is this a problem? I dunno but Reason still writes articles about free minds and free markets so I am willing to ignore their shit spewing in support of Shrillary or Obama or Trump or Mcain…

                    I just cant stand when, even though they may be biased, they report a criticism of Trump that is legit (like almost all are) that the trumpanauts go diving into the comments to decry bias instead of addressing said criticism.

                    1. R C Dean used a very specific time that was the coverage around the conventions. YOU decided to compare that to several months and then claim R C was full of shit. Dennis is now proving your numbers are shit as well so you blame RC.

                      BTW… I wont be voting as there is no candidate who captures even 50% of my beliefs. But this full out histronic parade of “TRUMP IS THE ANTI CHRIST” is wearing me out.

                    2. YOU are some sort of jackass…RC made a blanked statement. I refuted the claims that the bias was OVERWHELMING with a simple search. Dennis decided he didn’t like my methodology, re-did the research with better controls, and came to very similar conclusions as my half ass research did. Then you pop off like some wild idiot…well, thanks for your ignorant input.

                  2. The “fuck ’em both” term conjures up images of a thressome with Cankles and Trump. Said images are scarring and cannot be unseen.

    2. Clinton then discussed the right to own a gun as a hypothetical. “If it is a constitutional right,” she began her next answer, “then it ? like every other constitutional right ? is subject to reasonable regulations.”

      Sure, Trump is the major danger to the Constitution.

    3. Care to add to your totals. I despise Trump and still can clearly see bias.

      1. I acknowledged bias. Yes, it is clear Reason is leaning more anti trump that anti hilldog.

        My point is it isn’t the end of the world. It isn’t like they don’t criticize hillary, they do it quite a bit.

        1. That’s because people Skakira, Sheldon, Chapman, etc. are not libertarians at all. They are straight up democrats who libertarian leanings on a few issues. Reason has few columnists who are actually conservative, or pro GOP.

    4. Note though every clinton article must contain at least one complaint about Trump while Trump articles never mention Hillary so 100% of articles attack Trump

  6. Hitlery
    1. She wants to give innocent people the death penalty (by drone strike).
    2. She wants to strip innocent citizens of their rights.
    3.She wants to seize the assets of citizens.
    4.She wants to force gun owners to register in a database.
    5.She wants to silence media critcs
    6. she wants to crack down on anyone who disagrees with her.

    1. She wants to squelch free speech, especially free speech against her funded by groups of individuals.

    1. I am dissapointed. Expected this.

    2. Thank you for that. I needed a laugh.

    3. Was there some coordination to achieve this? It’s right purdy.

      1. Well, it was, before too many people starting voting and screwed it up.

    4. Thanks Dennis, this gets the point across to the resident trolls far better than anything I could have come up with.

    5. Postrel, or get the fuck out you newbie losers!

      1. I’m very sorry for violating the PC Norm… I really meant to say uneducated, unsophistcated non-college educated losers… /Postrel

        1. Is that racist? I’m so sorry. /Postrel

          1. Meanwhile, I’ve been doing completely worthless shit for the last 10 yrs, because, “KIDNEY”! /Postrel

            1. My kidney isn’t important, I just talk about it alot… /Postrel

      2. “I haven’t had an original idea in the last 16 years, but my most recent hires still love me!” /Postrel

        1. “Geez- I wish I had half the game of a Reason commente- I simply quit when it got hard” /Postrel

  7. But Trump is a unique threat.

    Unique in that he is just late to the party. How could he possibly know the proper way to circumvent Constitutional constraints if he hasn’t devoted his entire life to “public service” and “responsible governance”?

  8. So let me see if I understand this article…

    Donald Trump: The Constitution Buster
    Six ways he’ll assault core rights.

    The author goes on to say that Trump would be unable to follow through on 4 or 5 out of the 6.
    So how is he a threat, exactly?

    Reminds me of how Romney was going to repeal Roe v Wade, and send women back to the sculleries.

    1. He’ll overturn Citizen’s United and gut the 1st Amendment! Oh, wait…

      1. And the 2nd. Oh, wait….

        1. Don’t forget the 4th and 8th, 9th and 10th. A SOS in an administration that wants every bit of our data, yet can’t even personally figure out how to do e-mail- all while raising no objection to drone-bombing an innocent child citizen of our country…

          TRUMP IS SCARY!

    2. This. Seriously. So many f’ing articles about all of the horrific stuff that Trump would do if he was in office. Sometimes accompanied by a note that these horrible things he would do are definitely unconstitutional and he couldn’t even come close to making them happen.

      Then, why are you crapping your pants!?!?! He spouts endless bluster about the things that he would do and this terrifies people. That’s his whole f’ing shtick! Without all the pearl clutching, he would just be a ranting nutbag. But, by taking him seriously, people give him power and attention.

      Would he even have a candidacy if his opponents hadn’t taken him so seriously? How many of his supporters really think he’s a font of great ideas vs. how many are just fundamentally opposed to the rabidly anti-Trump crowd?

      1. well considering that our present President is doing unconstitutional things there is no reason the think Trump couldn’t as well except for the fact the he wouldn’t have the media covering for him.

  9. If he can use this law to silence critics, it is beyond horrifying to imagine what havoc he’ll wreak when he has the entire federal apparatus?the Internal Revenue Service, the Justice Department, the FCC?at his disposal.

    If Shikha cared to remember, it would probably look a lot like this or this or, going way back, this.

    Why it would be different or worse under Trump is a mystery.

    1. Shoot, SF’ed the second link. Operation Choke Point was a thinly-veiled attempt by the Obama Administration to suppress 1st and 2nd Am. rights via the DOJ and FDIC.

      1. Not to mention using the IRS to target and harass conservative organizations, and the NLRB deciding Boeing can’t move a plant to a right-to-work-state, because FYTW. And why should we question the current integrity of the DOJ, following Comey and Lynch’s recent antics?

      2. Operation Chokepoint is still a thing, and has now expanded from the gun biz to the knife biz.

        http://www.thetruthaboutknives…..facturers/

        1. But, TRUUUUUUMP!!111!!!!

        2. Yeah, didn’t mean to say it wasn’t still a thing. Just that whatever regulatory legitimacy it may’ve had, it *quickly* mutated into Obama’s personal constitution-assaulting monster.

      3. Operation Choke Point was not an “attempt”. It is a current ongoing, quite successful operation to push small-businesses out of the firearm and firearm accessories business. Once they get the bit-players out, its far easier to put political and economic pressure on the bigger companies.

    2. As if Clinton hasn’t already used the IRS, the FBI and the Justice Department against her enemies.

    3. TRUMP SCARY- YOU A YOKEL!

      #HazelNeadsDick, #Warty’sShriveledBalls, #PancreasDeficientMoronIsMySuperFriend.

      1. Don’t you just hate that shit? You rock out a great troll post… and you misspell “Neades”?

        1. And I also missed on Warty… “Brains” don’t have two “l”‘s in it! My bad…

  10. Literal alt text? I’ll take it.

  11. Obama’s readiness to use the IRS to go after political opponents, his treatment of whistleblowers like Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning, the astonishing precedent in the ACA that government can force you to buy something, the constant threat to throw out the Second Amendment, the willingness to squeeze corporations for what amounts to protection money, his prosecution of illegal wars in Libya, Yemen and enough other places it’s hard to count, the incredible militarization of our police forces with federal funds, a national domestic surveillance program conducted by the NSA and FBI in violation of the Fourth Amendment, his inability or unwillingness to do away with torture and illegal imprisonment altogether, his unwavering and publicly stated conviction that the Supreme Court’s First Amendment decision in Citizens United is unconstitutional, his famous statement that he will enact laws on his own if Congress does not cooperate with him: all of these instances show that our current president prepared the way for Trump….

  12. …The difference is that Obama is smooth and cool, whereas Trump is coarse and boorish. Obama pushed against constitutional limits as far as he could, given the times and circumstances. Trump is clearly prepared to keep pushing. We used to lawyers and judges who would debate fine points about constitutional rights. Violations now are so obvious, we all know the Bill of Rights far better than we used to. Every week seems to bring a new assault. People keep remarking how Trump is not mainstream, but that applies especially to his manner, especially his manner of speaking. When you compare Trump’s approach to Constitutional limits, protections and guarantees with Obama’s approach, he’s not so far out of the mainstream at all.

  13. But BOOOOOOSH CLINTON!

  14. The Clinton Foundation, State and Kremlin Connections
    Why did Hillary’s State Department urge U.S. investors to fund Russian research for military uses?

    1. Who cares, you damn Trumpkin! Trump actually had the nerve to respond to Khizr Khan after Khan attacked him!11!!! He’s the worst monster ever!!1111!!!

  15. Corrected version (sorry for double post of second paragraph):

    …The difference is that Obama is smooth and cool, whereas Trump is coarse and boorish. Obama pushed against constitutional limits as far as he could, given the times and circumstances. Trump is clearly prepared to keep pushing. We used to have lawyers and judges who would debate fine points about constitutional rights. Violations now are so obvious, we all know the Bill of Rights far better than we used to. Every week seems to bring a new assault. People keep remarking how Trump is not mainstream, but that applies most prominently to his manner, especially his manner of speaking. When you compare Trump’s approach to Constitutional limits, protections and guarantees with Obama’s approach, he’s not so far out of the mainstream at all.

  16. Reason Foundation Senior Analyst Shikha Dalmia

    What qualifies one to be an analyst for the foundation? And how did Dalmia get seniority?

    1. She brings all the good drugs to the party.

    2. Affirmative Action?

    3. They fired the white overpaid analysts and brought in some cheaper labor from India.

      1. sadly, they overpaid whatever the price.

  17. Let’s see, Dalmia grew up in New Delhi India and now lives in Detroit. So she moved from one shithole to another, so I guess she has no problem letting in millions of people from other shitholes around the world so the United States can turn into one big shithole. Yeah open borders!!

  18. “the fact that capital punishment is a state function”

    I’m not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but I’m not sure this is correct, and I think there are some other problems with point 1. Timothy McVeigh, for instance, was convicted on federal charges. It is true that the federal government only imposes the death penalty for a fairly limited number of offenses, but that could in theory be expanded. The SC has fairly recently declined to hear a case challenging the federal death penalty.

    Now, it’s certainly true that the President can’t directly set penalties. And it’s also true that under current interpretation the 8th amendment prohibits mandatory death sentences, but that applies equally to the states, if I’m not mistaken.

    1. That said, there would be jurisdictional questions, I think.

  19. Hard to see the death penalty as a constitutional issue. The death penalty was commonplace when the constitution was written.

  20. Dalmia left out the unconstitutionality of Trump inciting Hindus in India to commit genocide.

  21. You know, I’m not even going to read this. It would be a lot more meaningful if paired with “Hillary Clinton: The Constitution Buster” and “Gary Johnson: The Constitution Buster.” Who, exactly, isn’t going to try to deny some of my Constitutional rights? These attempts to make Trump seem uniquely bad aren’t even clever. Especially after the last 16 years of watching all three branches abusing Constitutional limitations and powers.

  22. Oh do shut up Shikha….

  23. This article sucked when she wrote it for The Week and she linked to it last week, and it still sucks.
    1) Since he was speaking to a New England FOP group, he was giving them some red meat. And by the tone of his statements, it is fair to say that an executive order would hold no legal standing. Rather, as he put it, it would be a statement that cop-killers deserve the death penalty. Not that he has any authority to actually make it happen. In other words, a form of bully pulpit.

    2) The seizing assets thing is a real red herring. He said that an illegal immigrant shouldn’t be able to wire money overseas. That is in no way, seizing assets, and particularly not for legal immigrants, nor for citizens.

    3) There are still arguments about the 14th amendment regarding anchor babies. And he is hardly alone in bringing this up.

    4) He has retracted statements regarding Muslims who are US Citizens. In addition, it is not unconstitutional to investigate people who belong to a certain mosque. What if it is KKK members? Aryan brotherhood? Are these OK? Or how about the JDL?

    5) Suing someone is hardly the same as passing laws to ban poltical speech (Citizen’s United anyone???)

    6) Her argument about the judge was a 1 off about a specific judge dealing with a specific case involving Trump. It had nothing to do with grand constitutional principles. And Trump didn’t make a racist comment. He said he thought the judge didn’t like him, because of his statements.

    1. In regards to 1) especially, she is full of shit. He never said “mandating” the death penalty. And she is completely clueless regarding the federal death penalty. Of course mandating the death penalty for state level crimes would violate the concepts of both federalism and separation of powers. But there are federal crimes for which the death penalty can be imposed. So the death penalty is not only a state function. But her entire argument rests on a lazy misquoting of Trump, and a bunch of non-sequitors.

      1. Here is his exact quote:
        “One of the first things I do, in terms of executive order if I win, will be to sign a strong, strong statement that will go out to the country — out to the world — that anybody killing a policeman, policewoman, a police officer — anybody killing a police officer, the death penalty. It’s going to happen, OK?”

        Nowhere in this statement is there even an implication of a mandate. I am quite sure he knows that an executive order in this case would carry no legal authority. It would be a statement of moral authority. That is all.

    2. Trump is such an awful candidate that it baffles my mind the constant need to exaggerate his gaffs. TDS is epidemic at this point.

      1. Exactly!! In no way are my arguments against Dalmia to be interpreted as an endorsement of Trump. Though under no circumstances would I ever vote for Hitlery, I may vote for either Trump or GayJay. Or I may just stay home and get drunk on my single-malt and rearrange the deck chairs.

  24. I i get paid over $86 per hour working from home with 3 kids at home. I never thought I’d be able to do it but my best friend earns over 10k a month doing this and she convinced me to try. The potential with this is endless.

    Heres what I’ve been doing:==>==>==> http://www.CareerPlus90.com

  25. Once again, we see the brainless conflation of immigration and illegal immigration. Deportation is a law enforcement issue. Profiling isn’t against the constitution, it’s a necessary tactic to identify the suspects who have broken the law.

  26. Hmmm. Six reasons to vote for him. Thanks.

  27. Heil, Trump! Wonder who he would pick for his Heinrich Himmler.

  28. Birthright citizenship is an attractive nuisance and bad policy. Even so changing the rules after the fact seems wrong if that is in fact what Trump is suggesting. However children of illegals should be welcome in their parents home country and that’s where their parents should take them. The citizenship status of the child does not mean the adult lawbreaking parents should not be held accountable.

  29. Maybe so, but we know for sure what Hillary would do to the Constitution

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.