Trump doesn't know if he's supposed to uphold the constitution

[JimmySpeaks]

4 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

And Biden has what to do with Trump not knowing one of the core functions of his office? 

Other than the fact that you ignored it when it was Biden …… nothing 

[WrestlingRasta]

22 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Why does it have to have something to do with Biden when it can be about all the wokester wingers that said nothing when mush brain knew nothing? 

 

16 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

You typed this because of feelings right? 

So you came up with one response, then came up with another response six minutes later, then had to go back and edit your first response ten minutes after that? 
 

Be careful, I don’t want to replace all that Biden in your head. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Just now, WrestlingRasta said:

 

So you came up with one response, then came up with another response six minutes later, then had to go back and edit your first response ten minutes after that? 
 

Be careful, I don’t want to replace all that Biden in your head. 

That’s all by design.  Enjoy reading it all. 

[JimmySpeaks]

2 minutes ago, WrestlingRasta said:

 

So you came up with one response, then came up with another response six minutes later, then had to go back and edit your first response ten minutes after that? 
 

Be careful, I don’t want to replace all that Biden in your head. 

The edit was to add the ?  I must have missed the button. 

Edited 12 hours ago by JimmySpeaks

[Tripnsweep]

3 minutes ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Other than the fact that you ignored it when it was Biden …… nothing 

Tell me when Biden publicly admitted he didn't know he was supposed to uphold the constitution. 

[Caveira]

1 minute ago, Tripnsweep said:

Tell me when Biden publicly admitted he didn't know he was supposed to uphold the constitution. 

When he was taking bribes from China. 

[JimmySpeaks]

1 minute ago, Tripnsweep said:

Tell me when Biden publicly admitted he didn't know he was supposed to uphold the constitution. 

Ummmmmm that’s the point. He didn’t know he had to. Anyone with a clue knew it. 

[JimmySpeaks]

Let’s discuss the difference between saying you don’t know and actually having no clue if you know. 

[Scouts Honor]

i was told the constitution is an old piece of paper written by stupid white men who owned slaves

blah blah blah

[Offthemat]

What upholds the Constitution is often disagreed upon by the Justices of the Supreme Court.  

[1032004]

3 hours ago, ionel said:

" I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

kind've intentionally forgot ^^^ this ^^^ part didnt you?  

Maybe he needs new lawyers because recently his lawyers claimed the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in his favor when that wasn’t true.

[Caveira]

14 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Maybe he needs new lawyers because recently his lawyers claimed the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in his favor when that wasn’t true.

The illegal el Salvadoran is still where now?

[Offthemat]

20 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

Maybe he needs new lawyers because recently his lawyers claimed the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 in his favor when that wasn’t true.

Was that the case where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the lower court didn’t have jurisdiction?

[Paul158]

42 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

What upholds the Constitution is often disagreed upon by the Justices of the Supreme Court.  

Yes, thousands of lawyers over the years have debated over the interpretation of the Constitution. The Supreme Court has spent a lot of time on the interpretation of the Constitution over the last 200 plus years. You can uphold the Constitution to the best of your ability, but you will probably be challenged on your interpretation.

[Tripnsweep]

1 hour ago, JimmySpeaks said:

Ummmmmm that’s the point. He didn’t know he had to. Anyone with a clue knew it. 

Did he ever say publicly he didn't know if he had to uphold the constitution?

Fairly simple answer. 

[Tripnsweep]

6 hours ago, Offthemat said:

What upholds the Constitution is often disagreed upon by the Justices of the Supreme Court.  

That doesn't make sense. 

It's literally in the oath of office. There's no Supreme Court decision that disagrees with what is in the oath of office. 

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

Nothing that needs to be litigated or decided there. Either you uphold the constitution or you don't. 

[Offthemat]

1 hour ago, Tripnsweep said:

That doesn't make sense. 

Several times now a district judge has deemed actions by the Trump administration to be unconstitutional, only to be overturned by a higher court.  The lower court would have been said to say that Trump was acting unconstitutionally (not upholding the constitution) while the higher court would be said to say that he was upholding the constitution.  If you need me to complicate it more, just say the word. 

[Tripnsweep]

14 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Several times now a district judge has deemed actions by the Trump administration to be unconstitutional, only to be overturned by a higher court.  The lower court would have been said to say that Trump was acting unconstitutionally (not upholding the constitution) while the higher court would be said to say that he was upholding the constitution.  If you need me to complicate it more, just say the word. 

You're arguing something totally different. This isn't about whether what Trump is doing is constitutionally correct or not. This is about one of the basic functions of the job. Like one that is explicitly mentioned in the actual oath of office. 

And he publicly said he doesn't know if that's what he's supposed to do? This isn't being a bad president, this is being a bad junior high student. It's like going to school and when your parents ask you if you're supposed to do homework, saying you don't know. 

[Offthemat]

6 minutes ago, Tripnsweep said:

You're arguing something totally different.

No, he’s saying that he knows right from wrong; that he’s trying to do what’s right and he relies on his lawyers to determine constitutionality, but while judges don’t agree on what’s constitutional, he can’t say for sure.  TDS has you making way more of this than is there.  

[1032004]

9 hours ago, Offthemat said:

Was that the case where the Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that the lower court didn’t have jurisdiction?

That was only part of the ruling, he ignored the part that ruled against them

[Offthemat]

13 minutes ago, 1032004 said:

That was only part of the ruling, he ignored the part that ruled against them

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than a court telling the President he should allow an illegal alien who has an order of removal to be facilitated to re-enter the country so he can be deported, again?

[1032004]

11 minutes ago, Offthemat said:

Can you imagine anything more ridiculous than a court telling the President he should allow an illegal alien who has an order of removal to be facilitated to re-enter the country so he can be deported, again?

Yes.

[1032004]

But at least you seem to acknowledge that the “9-0 in our favor” statement was a lie, @Offthemat.  Kudos

[JimmySpeaks]

9 hours ago, Tripnsweep said:

Did he ever say publicly he didn't know if he had to uphold the constitution?

Fairly simple answer. 

He didn’t know how. Fairly simple to understand