Trump, asked if he has to 'uphold the Constitution,' says, 'I don't know'

[_Miracle]

https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/trump-asked-if-he-has-to-uphold-the-constitution-says-i-don-t-know-238872133573


Just FYI this is "THE OATH" taken when a president is sworn in:

"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 was his:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIvhmRjzeYk&ab_channel=WSJNews


Key features of the U.S. Constitution:

Preamble: Introduces the document and states the reasons for its creation.

Articles: Establish the structure of the government, including the legislative, executive, and judicial branches, and how the Constitution can be amended.
Amendments: Changes to the Constitution, reflecting the evolving needs of the nation.

Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments, guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms to citizens,
Supremacy Clause: Establishes the Constitution as the supreme law of the land, meaning no other law can contradict its principles.

Federalism: Divides power between the federal government and state governments.

Separation of Powers: Divides governmental power among the legislative, executive, and judicial branches to prevent any one branch from becoming too powerful.

Checks and Balances: Allows each branch of government to limit the powers of the other branches.
                                                                                Popular Sovereignty: The principle that the government's power comes from the people.
Limited Government: The concept that the government's power is restricted by the Constitution and the law.

[_Miracle]

*Reserving


Maria Ressa warns of authoritarianism in the U.S.: “This is a pivotal moment"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWpedkNHo3E&ab_channel=GBHNews

Added 5/19/25
https://www.supremecourt.gov/

[franky1]

Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments, guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms to citizens,

citizens
vs
illegal immigrant on a suspended sentence(delay in deportation)

enough said?
..
due process:
abrego garcia went through the due process many years ago. was found to be illegal imigrant and was meant to be deported. but the deportation(plane ride) was suspended because of fears that he would be attacked by a (now defunct) rival gang

now that gang is defunct. there is no risk and the deportation procedure was able to continue, fulfilling the due process that was halted many years ago

imagine it like getting a suspended sentence. where the sentence(in this case deportation) that had been given is stalled unless/until situations change.
the due process of court/sentancing is done, but the person can still be punished at a later date if certain things occur

..
as for the feds court order to facilitate the return
well thats just paying for the plane ride to ensure he gets back safely. thats not to invade el salvador or kidnap someone from their birth/naturalised country

[_Miracle]

Bill of Rights: The first ten amendments, guaranteeing fundamental rights and freedoms to citizens,

citizens
vs
illegal immigrant on a suspended sentence(delay in deportation)

enough said?
..
due process:
abrego garcia went through the due process many years ago. was found to be illegal imigrant and was meant to be deported. but the deportation(plane ride) was suspended because of fears that he would be attacked by a (now defunct) rival gang

now that gang is defunct. there is no risk and the deportation procedure was able to continue, fulfilling the due process that was halted many years ago

imagine it like getting a suspended sentence. where the sentence(in this case deportation) that had been given is stalled unless/until situations change.
the due process of court/sentancing is done, but the person can still be punished at a later date if certain things occur

..
as for the feds court order to facilitate the return
well thats just paying for the plane ride to ensure he gets back safely. thats not to invade el salvador or kidnap someone from their birth/naturalised country

I'm so uninterested in your view on this AND I'm not talking about this one incident but FYI: there is also the 14th amendment and he is in contempt of a court order. And the judicial is one the checks and balances.

Your lack of constitutional knowledge is not as concerning to me as my current president's.

Whether any of this matters anymore is another story.

[franky1]

the video asked the question in the context of the agrego garcia drama and whether trump would abide and follow the constitution

anyways
regarding the constitution and the oath

people of any nation or even citizens of america are not suppose to know every word of the constitution by heart.
they are also not responsible to uphold the constitution

to uphold is different than to "preserve, protect and defend"
so asking the question of "uphold" instead of the words of his oath"preserve and defend" is more of a word play.

and as to the best of his ability. well thats why he employs lawyers as do other citizens when constitutional issues arise.
again peoples ability may lack knowledge of law, so they employ lawyers to take on that responsibility
..
people break constitutional rights all the time, but its upto the courts to decide not only if the issue is within the constitution but also if there was a breach and if the courts even have powers to decide on the cases of such

and thats a matter for the lawyers to fight over

by trump not being a lawyer its not in his ability to do certain things, thats why he employs lawyers, advisers, etc
as he is not suppose to be an expert of everything just to become a president. he can only do whats within his ability

his ability is more so to ensure funding the DOJ(court system) so that there are courts available for citizens and lawyers to utilise and ensure the court system can mediate and judge on constitutional matters that the judicial branch have power of

as for immigration. thats for the political/executive branch to have powers of making ruling over not the judicial

[_Miracle]

the video asked the question in the context of the agrego garcia drama and whether trump would abide and follow the constitution

anyways
regarding the constitution and the oath

people of any nation or even citizens of america are not suppose to know every word of the constitution by heart.
they are also not responsible to uphold the constitution

to uphold is different than to "preserve, protect and defend"
so asking the question of "uphold" instead of the words of his oath"preserve and defend" is more of a word play.

and as to the best of his ability. well thats why he employs lawyers as do other citizens when constitutional issues arise.
again peoples ability may lack knowledge of law, so they employ lawyers to take on that responsibility
..
people break constitutional rights all the time, but its upto the courts to decide not only if the issue is within the constitution but also if there was a breach and if the courts even have powers to decide on the cases of such

and thats a matter for the lawyers to fight over

by trump not being a lawyer its not in his ability to do certain things, thats why he employs lawyers, advisers, etc
as he is not suppose to be an expert of everything just to become a president. he can only do whats within his ability

his ability is more so to ensure funding the DOJ(court system) so that there are courts available for citizens and lawyers to utilise and ensure the court system can mediate and judge on constitutional matters that the judicial branch have power of

as for immigration. thats for the political/executive branch to have powers of making ruling over not the judicial

Wow to the bolded = it is the presidential oath (the 2nd video is him taking it). But now we can all see clearly how double speak begins to work.
You seem to be itching to have an immigration conversation? The more relevant issue is "Due Process" ----> people don't disappear off of our streets without it.

A district court ruled that he be returned and the supreme court upheld the decision. ---now we'll see where that takes us.
The judiciary branch is part of the balance of powers built into the founding.

Why is it that so many of the people who want to defend Trump only have a narrow understanding of the 1st and 2nd amendments?

It's a really good time to print and read things like the constitution, bill of rights ect.

[Ucy]

There are times you rely on perfect law of the CREATOR of our Universe when man-made law fails you. By the way, every human law ought to be derived from the law of our CREATOR. That's the foundation/quality nature is built upon. Deviating from the law will be like building outside of solidly laid foundation. Such building will not stand during a great storm or choas.
So, it's right to be uncertain under man-made law. If things go out of hand or beyond his ability to handle, it is ofcourse right to completely rely on the CREATOR Law, which should be the supreme law of any land. The law is perfect, meaning you and any country of the world will find no issue in it.

[franky1]

Wow to the bolded = it is the presidential oath (the 2nd video is him taking it). But now we can all see clearly how double speak begins to work.
You seem to be itching to have an immigration conversation? The more relevant issue is "Due Process" ----> people don't disappear off of our streets without it.

to facilitate his return is to "make it easy" for him to return..

so trump can pay for the plane ticket. can ensure the border lets him in. but..(and here is the rub)
its not trumps job to invade el salvador. nor does trump have any power over el salvadors president. trump can ask el salvadors president, but cannot force el salvadors president to release him. trump has no power over el salvador. its not his jurisdiction so not in his ability

also it does not need trump himself to stand at the border with weapons threatening el salvador. nor for trump personally to chauffeur abrego from the border

if el salvador want to release abrego, then yes trump can delegate a plane to take him back if abrego has no funding to get himself back. but thats about it.
el salvador dont want to release him. so nothing is going to happen

as to the details of the district court. the defendants(abrego's family) only asked for trump to stop funding his imprisonment in el salvador and REQUEST to have him released. non of which is about invading el salvador and doing a prison break

but to the point of the constitution
its not trumps job to walk upto every citizens home and teach people like a door-to-door preacher, the details of the constitution
if there are constitutional breaches. then the CITIZENS dont walk into th white house to plead their case.

thats why his ability is to delegate certain needed tasks to experts better then him to be in place and doing their job honourably by getting them to swear an oath too
this is why judges have an oath also
this is why the fed should fund DoJ to ensure courts are available for citizens to have an arena/forum to voice their disputes
this is why the fed should fund education to offer social/political history classes to teach constitutional details
this is why the fed should fund public defenders for those whom cant afford their own lawyer


its not for trump to be the judge of any and all cases involving constitutional disputes
its not trumps job to be the jury
its not trumps job to be the executioner
he employs his own experts for that and delegates people to perform certain needed duties to uphold it

and certain things not constitutionally in the powers of the judicial branch. thats where trump gets a say. such as with illegal immigrants
especially when immigrants have had there day in court years ago and found to be illegal migrant. thus no longer a judicial matter.  and informed of their sentence. then having sentence suspended until conditions are met
which means his due process has been fulfilled

[BADecker]

Trump's answer explained.

Everything is done by contractual agreement. The American people have contracted themselves under the 14th Amendment as US citizens (like the slaves that were freed) when originally they were citizens of their State.

This contractual agreement-ing is allowed by the Contract Clause in the Constitution. The Contract Clause is 'ArtI.S10.C1.5 Contract Clause'. See it at https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-10/clause-1/contract-clause. Consider the parts: "No State shall ... pass any ... Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts... ." The Fed Gov is a 'state' of sorts.

What this means is that the kinds of contracts that people inadvertently get into with the Federal Government... that's what rules. And it is a vague thing concerning if people can get themselves into a contract with the Fed Gov... a contract that is permanent and overrides the rest of the authority of the Constitution. So, Trump doesn't know for sure.

Further, when people sign paperwork with government, they may not mean what government interprets the contract to mean. Yet, government can only go by what is written on the paperwork, but not by what people think that the paperwork means. This is why you want to sign any (all?) government paperwork "non-assumpsit, (your signature)"

"Non-assumpsit" essentially means "no contract." You especially want to sign this way when there is no government person signing the contract along with you. Note that applications for benefits from government are a form of contract.

[franky1]

to correct badecker

you dont need to sign things..

there are other ways
purchasing a visa(as part of a plane/cruiseship ticket), being born within a jurisdiction*, being invited into a jurisdiction(border checks/at ports), swearing an oath, etc

*trump is trying to change this, whereby if your parents are natives or naturalised into america and then you are born you also then get naturalised as a citizen. however if a foreigner has a baby in america, they would require a different process to have their child become a citizen

anyway involving the topic of trump needing to uphold the constitution. the emphasis and answer to the question is:
he personally doesnt need to become a lawyer and judge and such to arbitrate all constitutional disputes. however as commander, chief and president of the country he has the ability to delegate people to uphold the constitution and its his job to ensure there are people inplace to uphold it, defend it, preserve it

this also means replacing public servants that abuse the constitution

just crossing a border without invitation does not give you full constitutional rights

[_Miracle]

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." ---MLK


https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs    -----> read while you still can.

Again, not interested in regurgitating the news cycle that has been curated by billionaires to help you all stay distracted while people lose the basic "self evident Inalienable rights". Thousands of people will be disappearing without due process (at first).

 


First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

by Pastor Martin Niemöller  


There has been pushback on idea of individual liberty from the start and in a very real way we have all been programed to value money over people. To be made to think that conformity is something we should strive for (in the guise of conservatism in my country).
How much more does anyone think those at the top can extract from the earth for themselves before there is nothing left? How much more human dignity can be wrung out of humanity before there is nothing left? And for what? For who? Not for everyday people. You are welcome to give up your liberty 'cause you're bored or are not interested in taking the time to understand how dear it is has been. Or in what it takes to maintain it----> here is 'not' a secret: when you protect those who are most vulnerable; you protect yourself.


Here is another 'not' a secret: those who have power know it too.

[BADecker]

to correct badecker

you dont need to sign things..

there are other ways
purchasing a visa(as part of a plane/cruiseship ticket), being born within a jurisdiction*, being invited into a jurisdiction(border checks/at ports), swearing an oath, etc

*trump is trying to change this, whereby if your parents are natives or naturalised into america and then you are born you also then get naturalised as a citizen. however if a foreigner has a baby in america, they would require a different process to have their child become a citizen

anyway involving the topic of trump needing to uphold the constitution. the emphasis and answer to the question is:
he personally doesnt need to become a lawyer and judge and such to arbitrate all constitutional disputes. however as commander, chief and president of the country he has the ability to delegate people to uphold the constitution and its his job to ensure there are people inplace to uphold it, defend it, preserve it

this also means replacing public servants that abuse the constitution

just crossing a border without invitation does not give you full constitutional rights

It's true that when you get into the nitty-gritty, you don't have to sign things. Agreements are made by simple agreement actions. Many agreements are still made by a handshake.

As far as "purchasing a visa(as part of a plane/cruiseship ticket), being born within a jurisdiction*, being invited into a jurisdiction(border checks/at ports), swearing an oath, etc" it still is based on who you are and how you get these things. And, it is different in different jurisdictions. If you are a man/woman who is not a party to a 'state', you have to express it if you don't want to be included in the state that issues a document like these.

The time to clarify might be later, when there is question about the document holder. That's the reason why you use "non-assumpsit (or n-a)" right up front, whenever you start a process. Almost all such processes have a signature or a 'mark' involved.

I don't believe Trump is trying to change things. What he should be doing is clarifying things. However, he would be diminishing his own position as President if he did something like clarify the difference between a 'man/woman' and a 'person' in legal law. Here is the straight-forward info about the Office of the Person in legal law... at least in America. Look up the definitions in any State laws to see this.

As far as crossing the border, it might be illegal for you for some reason. But once you are in, you don't need constitutional rights. The constitution is a protection against government harming people. Once in, the first thing you need to do is recognize that you are a 'people' - not a 'person'.

The next thing you need to do (if you are questioned by the authorities) is ask them for their authority to question you, a man/woman. If they treat you in an unfair or damaging way, you need to invoice them for damages individually. So, if you are going to cross the border in, be prepared with people inside who can help you. One of the best places to go to start preparing is You Are Law.

Once in, if you haven't hurt anyone while coming in, you are simply a man or woman in. Constitution is to protect you, whoever you are, against government... not to give you any rights. Every man and woman already has the rights... in America, that is. Other jurisdictions are different. However, the UK is the same. It's just their processes that are a little different.

Note that this info is not a method. It's simply info that there is a method. Search for the details.

[franky1]

badecker has so many things wrong when he follows the silly cultish freeman/sovereign script crap

if you cross the border without citizenship, invitation or visa etc.... your defacto an illegal alien, so avoid contact with authority, especially if they try to establish your identity to establish your status

so dont commit crimes to raise authorities awareness of you
..
you defacto dont have rights. but, here is the rub. the police and court system itself cannot do things outside of the constitution so you can use their need to work within the constitution

EG they need to articulate a suspicion of a crime to then invoke the powers to then request an id
(4th amendment prevents unlawful seizure of possessions and papers(ID) unless suspicion of a crime)

if however you just declare you are not a citizen, have revoked your citizenship and dont wish to be a citizen(the freeman/sovereign scripts), that can negatively affect you(detain you under ICE/DHS laws).

as for the topic, for emphasis
its not trumps job to be in all places of all jurisdictions arbitrating all situations related to the constitution. thats why things like courts, DHS and other authorities exist. trump only has to within his ability facilitate that those departments the president delegates those authorities to uphold the constitution, are funded and are established to uphold the constitution. this includes relieving judges/officers of departments of their duties should they not work within the constitution

[BADecker]

Poor franky1. Doesn't seem to understand that 'sovereign citizen' is a self-contradiction right within itself. And worse, the poor joker thinks that having private property somehow equates with 'sovereign citizenship'.

Further, poor franky1 doesn't seem to recognize that private property has been upheld by the courts all over the USA. States and counties that have laws against smoking, drinking, and nudity, must allow such to be done as long as there is no offense being done to those people who do not partake. That's why membership clubs can and do act against these laws all the time, legally and lawfully. It's also why SCOTUS has upheld Private Membership Associations lately, and privacy in general since the start of the USA. It was placed right into the 4th Amendment.

If a man or woman crosses the border illegally, he/she is still a man or woman when he/she gets into the USA. If somebody (a judge) calls him/her a defacto illegal alien, he/she is only such if he/she agrees with it. Why? Because a man or woman is his/her own private property in the USA. And private property is the fundamental, basic, overruling law in the USA. He/she gets to make the decision regarding what he/she is.

The problem that a so-called illegal has is that he/she doesn't generally realize that the USA is a private property country. In addition, he/she generally doesn't realize that he/she is making an agreement with the courts by simply accepting court actions without first making the statement that he/she is in agreement with them only by explicitly stating that he/she is in agreement with them.

This doesn't have anything to do with sovereign citizenship. It has everything to do with the fundamental laws regarding private property.

Poor franky1. Trapped inside of the British government because he doesn't realize that UK laws are similar to USA with regard to private property.

[Lida93]

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

by Pastor Martin Niemöller  

When illegality or evil is been perpetrated towards a section or group of people those not affected often times give a blind sight and deaf ears to the wailing and petitions of the affected. In being that it doesn't in anyway affects them. But a popular adage states, "when a finger is stained with oil, it will inevitably extend to the rest".

We now live in societies where humans are less or no concern about what's happening in other parts of the world which ought to be condemned but because it's not happening yet in their society it felt like nothing to them. Until they were caught up in the very net. Take a look at the spate of terrorism now all over the world, it started from somewhere...

[franky1]

The problem that a so-called illegal has is that he/she doesn't generally realize that the USA is a private property country. In addition, he/she generally doesn't realize that he/she is making an agreement with the courts by simply accepting court actions without first making the statement that he/she is in agreement with them only by explicitly stating that he/she is in agreement with them.

poor badecker
badecker now wants to talk in buzzwords of property.. ok lets translate:

what badecker doesnt realise is crossing a border means you are entering the property(jurisdiction) of the US government uninvited(trespass) as its US property someone steps onto/invades
so if caught the man/woman/child without invite cant pretend to be a bubble entity that is immune to US rules. the US gets to defend its property especially if said trespasser has links to terrorist organisations

much the same with using STATE highways.. if caught, expect trouble

by simply stepping on anothers property you are agreeing to their terms of use and conditions aka laws and rules. if you dont agree and still persist on remaining then expect trouble

oh and you dont choose which court will handle your stupidity. if illegal migrant. it will be the immigration court where due process is different to that of invited people and citizens

[coyhasmon]

Yet another thing that the left takes out of context. Have you watched the full interview and understood the context of the question and the intended meaning of the answer?

what badecker doesnt realise is crossing a border means you are entering the property(jurisdiction) of the US government uninvited(trespass) as its US property someone steps onto/invades

As soon as you enter without the proper way, you are illegal. Even if you have proper documentation such as a passport, you have committed the criminal act of entering illegally. You can't undo what you did, even if you find ways to get some legal processes going afterwards it is not as relevant. Everyone illegal should be deported and banned from returning. If you are caught twice, you should be given a long prison sentence before your deportation. Many are oblivious to this or refuse to admit it because that would confirm their stance in these issues is wrong.

[BADecker]

Formerly it was simply an ignorant franky1. But now he is becoming an enemy of private property owners in the USA. How is he doing this? By saying that the private property of individuals in the USA is really government property.

Regarding so-called illegals, the Constitution only allows the Federal Government of the USA to have border control. The border has been adjudicated to include enough land within the USA so that Fed Gov can carry out their border control operations.

Other USA lands within the borders include:
- the District of Columbia;
- certain Federal lands throughout the country to be used as military bases;
- lands that the States have contracted with Fed Gov for Fed Gov usage and control;
- lands that have been ceded to Fed Gov by the States.

Except in times of emergency or formal war, that's it. The rest of the land is private property, belonging to the people or the States.

The problem for the people is that the courts have manipulated and redefined language so that the people don't understand what they are saying in legal language. The language of the people is different than legal language... which uses a lot of Latin, and 'terms' made up of several common words... terms that are defined in ways that the people don't understand, or even realize that it has been done.

The above is why the people, when in court, need to constantly require from judges and other authorities, 'statements of fact' and 'conclusions of law' so that the people understand where the authority of the court comes from. In addition to showing the people that there is a big difference between the public domain and private domains, this is exactly the thing that You Are Law does. You Are Law shows the people how to require 'statements of fact' and 'conclusions of law' from judges and other authorities, so that they can know if these authorities are acting legally and lawfully.

Seems that franky1 simply wants to ignore the 'statements of fact' and 'conclusions of law', to the detriment of the people and their private property.



I probably won't do the following, but I have been thinking about it.

Get together with several Hispanic people in the USA who are American citizens. Form a Private Membership Association (PMA) with them. Buy some cheap land and a couple of cars into the PMA. Drive across the border into Mexico, possibly to Rocky Point. Sign some Mexicans into the PMA. Drive back over the border with them into the USA. Take the Mex's to the PMA land and teach them English if they don't know it already. And teach them the power of private property in the USA.

Can do it because it is private - not within the public jurisdiction - and SCOTUS and the Federal Government have authorized PMA's.

[franky1]

your members club land is just a cult commune.. but to get your new mexican cult recruits to it means using the US highways and cross the US border to recruit, and then use the US border and US highways to get back to your commune.. so goodluck with that (trafficking migrants: felony)

and once on your commune(if not caught*) they cant leave to explore america.. so your cult is just a prison commune.. so yea put it aside and dont do it.
your members club ID is only useful within the commune. much like a gym membership ID is only useful in the gym, its not a driving licence to prove your permitted to drive on a highway

if you are caught, the police detain you all.. they identify you as a citizen of arizona so arrest you and arraign you in the normal criminal court process.. and they get DHS and ICE to handle the migrants you smuggled in

as for asking for 'statement of fact' and 'conclusions of law'
thats the whole point of hearings and trials, to provide all that in the courts process

you got no clue at all, you just quote crap from a cultish site but have no idea of the process and how things actually work.(neither does your cult reference site)
EG 'conclusion of law' comes after judgement not at the start. so has nothing to do with proving the court has jurisdiction to begin proceedings but has everything to do with explaining the reason of judgement being lawful at the end

badecker please stop reading the freeman/sovereign cult crap.. it all got debunked decades ago

[Hispo]

Interesting enough Trump could have avoided all this discussion with just a simple word "yes".
After all, he sworn to uphold the constitution of the United States when he was officially inaugurated.

And yet, I don't understand what Trump is trying to get out of this by avoiding to explicitly say he will uphold and protect the constitution. He has nothing to win out making people to believe he is going to use power to become a tyrant or something similar. As if he does not even care to hide anything anymore.