this post was submitted on 04 May 2025
4 points (100.0% liked)

politics

30777 readers
3042 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Doesn't even know the presidential oath he pledged.

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Boddhisatva@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Pressed whether his administration is following the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which says no person "shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," Trump said he wasn't sure.

"I don't know. It seems – it might say that, but if you're talking about that, then we'd have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials," he said. "We have thousands of people that are some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth."

It might say that? Might? This isn't something that is debatable you hippopotamic dung heap. That's what it fucking says.

[–] PlantJam@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

"Well yeah it says that but it'd be pretty inconvenient, so..."

[–] nieminen@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Thank you for the new word!

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Tarquinn2049@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Yeah, 3 million trials to catch the thousands of criminals in his own words... or maybe instead of trials first, they could maybe only be rounded up if there is any actual reason to believe they are a criminal in the first place. Then it would only be thousands of trials and all the problems being caused by rounding up 900+ innocent people per 1 criminal, would all of a sudden go away.

[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

Spot on, but Hippo dung is healthy for the environment. Krasnov is not.

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] a_baby_duck@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I always go back to that early coronavirus briefing where a reporter questioned his authority to dictate state government lockdown policies and he just sat there stunned, repeating "when you're the president your authority is total because you have total authority, it's total..." It's been clear for years that this fucking guy never understood the job description, and rather than learning anything from experience, he's having it rewritten. The constitution isn't going to save us from that.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] DaddleDew@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (7 children)

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

This is the oath he had to make when he took office.

[–] SpaceNoodle@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

You think he was awake for that part?

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Right, but was he lying when he said it? He's not sure.

[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

He had his fingers crossed...

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

If I recall, he didn't even place a hand on the Bible.

[–] Kecessa@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

Pretty crazy that it's sworn in the Bible when the state is supposed to be separated from the church

[–] Mooncheeze@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I'm pretty sure each person chooses a document/book to swear on that is core to them. So most people in the US would choose the Bible because they identify as Christian, but if a Jewish person or Muslim person was sworn in they could choose the Torah or Quran. And a non-religuous person could choose anything that they could convinceably argue is important/core to their values.

Disclaimer: I did no research right now to confirm this but that's what I remember.

[–] Hideakikarate@sh.itjust.works 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

I remember one politician being sworn in with a stack of comics.

Found it

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

It's actually not mandatory that a Bible, or any religious text be used for swearing in a president. There's nothing stating that a Jewish president couldn't use the Torah or a Muslim president couldn't use the Koran. We've just only had Christian presidents so far, though not all of them have used bibles for the ceremony.

Separation from church and state only pretty much states that congress can make no laws favoring one religion over another or make any laws prohibiting the practice of one's religion. To prohibit a president from swearing in on a religious text of their choice would, in and of itself, be a first amendment violation. Saying they have to, would also be a violation. The strict separation of church from the state, freedom from religion or the "wall of separation," is something people have argued for, but isn't actually laid out in the constitution.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] capt_wolf@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Probably

A. Pissed it wasn't one from his merch store

B. Afraid that if he touched a real Bible, he'd burst into flames.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[–] JailElonMusk@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Obviously he was being "sarcastic" during that too.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] redlemace@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

"don't konow" ?? isn't that like the first thing in his job description?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Traitor cunt.

[–] Zimroxo@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

If this comment doesn't make the case for impeachment idk what does

Upholding the constitution is the most basic part of the job.

If he "doesn't know" if he can do that he is unfit for the position and should be removed immediately. Not even counting all the other violations of the constitution his administration has committed in just the first 100 days alone

[–] Maiq@lemy.lol 0 points 1 year ago (3 children)

You swear on it when you take the Oath Of Office.

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

However,

The Constitution provides no standards for determining whether a President has violated their oath. The fact that other branches interpret the Constitution, and may do do inconsistently with the President, creates difficulties in determining whether the oath has been violated. Just as some Presidents have suggested that the oath may require them to disregard laws when doing so is necessary to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution, some lawmakers have argued that the President’s oath requires them to execute all laws, regardless of whether the President believes them to be constitutional.

The Supreme Court has not addressed these competing views, and the oath and its surrounding text do not suggest that questions about violations of the oath were intended for judicial resolution. The Court has held that the President is generally immune from civil or criminal liability for official actions taken while in office, which may impede judicial resolution of questions relating to a President’s violation of their oath arising during the President’s tenure. The Constitution’s justiciability requirements are another potential obstacle to resolution in federal court.

Impeachment provides a vehicle by which Congress may adjudicate a President’s alleged violation of their oath. Articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson charged the President with being unmindful of the high duties of his office and of his oath of office. Draft articles of impeachment to be used against President Richard Nixon alleged that President Nixon violated his oath, though he resigned before these articles were adopted.  Articles of impeachment adopted in the impeachment of President Bill Clinton charged the President with violating his constitutional oath, as did articles of impeachment adopted in both impeachments of President Donald Trump.

The political process provides another check on the President’s violation of their oath. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton suggested in various contexts that political accountability might help ensure the President’s fidelity to their office. In his second inaugural speech, George Washington observed that violating his oath would invite the upbraidings of all who are now witnesses of the present solemn ceremony.

https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-S1-C8-1-5/ALDE_00013936/

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] Bonus@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago

I don't know. You'll have to speak to the President about that.

[–] ryrybang@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

He does not. He's above any and all laws. I don't know why, but he his. The Constitution is meaningless to a king.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 1 year ago

Imagine celebrating a fascist swearing allegiance to a slavemasters pact.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_religion

[–] astronaut_sloth@mander.xyz 0 points 1 year ago

Sounds like yet another high crime and misdemeanor. Why doesn't the co-equal branch established in Article I do it's duty? And failing that, why doesn't Hegseth, who has "We the People" tattooed on his drunken forearm, have the courage that he demands of others to tell off his boss? Where are the Oath Keepers who say they are so opposed to a tyrannical government and take their oaths to the Constitution seriously?

They wipe their collective asses with the Constitution. For that, everyone in this administration, and those who enabled it should burn as the traitors that they are.

[–] OrteilGenou@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

This comment has devastated the entire MAGAverse

[–] zib@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Donny, you had ONE job...

[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 0 points 1 year ago (9 children)

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

They don't care. All they care about is their in-group is strong and the out-group is punished. They're shitty people.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] celeste@kbin.earth 0 points 1 year ago

He doesn't need to if no one holds him accountable. He should need to, legally, but, in the current environment, he doesn't.

[–] athairmor@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

I’m sure the Oath Keepers group will speak out and act on this. Right? Right? ^crickets^

It’s ok, he learned his lesson

-Susan Collins

[–] TwinTitans@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

To be fair to trump, he is retarded and doesn’t know shit.

[–] GuyFawkes@midwest.social 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

I’ve got it! Let’s wring our hands about this while we continue to do nothing. Wait until it’s too late, and THEN start to fight back. That’ll show ‘em!

Someone start a Facebook group, this person is onto something!

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Gammelfisch@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago

Fucking "Yes" lawyers who continue to make attempts to undermine the US Judicial system and constitution.

[–] Lexam@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

"I don't know" the defense of criminals and toddlers.

[–] eugenevdebs@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago

Worked for Ronald Reagan, works for Trump, I guess.

load more comments
view more: next ›