Doesn’t even know the presidential oath he pledged.

You proud now MAGAts? Does this make you proud?

  • drsilverworm@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    14 hours ago

    A lot of Trumpers here decorate their cars with “We the people…” in Constitution-style script. I wonder how much of it he needs to violate for them to see the disconnect.

  • Floon@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    16 hours ago

    “I do solemnly swear 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.”

    The oath of office has one stipulation. Just one.

    He’s taken it twice. He’s such an evil man.

    • JcbAzPx@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      14 hours ago

      “to the best of my ability” is a pretty big loophole for Trump, who has no ability.

  • a baby duck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    18 hours ago

    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.

  • 1995ToyotaCorolla@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    19 hours ago

    Turns out as long as they have ( R ) next to their name, the president can operate with all the integrity of a five year old trying to get out of cleaning their room

  • _stranger_@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    24
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Oh he literally forgot the oath of the presidency? Sounds like a good reason to invoke the 25th amendment.

  • suicidaleggroll@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    21 hours ago

    To be fair, I don’t know either. I mean he’s supposed to, and he swore an oath to, but if nobody is going to enforce that then must he really? What happens if/when he doesn’t?

  • Etterra@discuss.online
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    Those people only understand the 2nd amendment, and think the first amendment should only apply to themselves.

  • Phoenixz@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    You just gotta love it that this shit stain is supported by constitution lovers

  • Freshparsnip@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    edit-2
    1 day ago

    WHY IS THIS SHIT ALLOWED! THIS MAN SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN ANY RESPONSIBLE POSITION! HE SHOULDN’T BE IN CHARGE OF A LEMONADE STAND MUCH LESS A COUNTRY! WHY DID AMERICA ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN! THE MAN DOESN’T WANT TO DO HIS JOB OF UPHOLDING THE CONSITUTION! THAT’S LIKE A DOCTOR SAYING THEY DON’T KNOW IF THEY HAVE TO ABIDE BY THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH! TRUMP AND ALL OF THE REPUBLICANS IN CONGRESS NEED TO BE TRIED FOR TREASON! WHY HAS THIS MADNESS GONE ON SO LONG!

  • samus12345@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    18 hours ago

    The answer is clearly “no.” He’s been doing unconstitutional shit since day 1, and nobody has stopped him.

  • jjjalljs@ttrpg.network
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    117
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

  • DaddleDew@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    190
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    “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.

          • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

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

            • Mooncheeze@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              24
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              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.

                • Dragomus@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  8
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  I did not know this … it is both awesome and interesting.

                  I think the act of being sworn in should also be on one’s passport, give it more weight that if you break the oath you lose the citizenship.

            • mic_check_one_two@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              edit-2
              2 days ago

              The separation of church and state is exactly why the president can be sworn in on a bible. Barring a member of office from swearing in on a religious text would specifically violate their first amendment right to practice religion. Importantly, the state doesn’t require them to use a bible, and it also doesn’t prevent them from doing so.

              That’s the whole point of separation of church and state. If the state required a religious text, that would be establishing a national religion. And if the state prevented it, that would be infringing on peoples’ right to practice religion.

              It doesn’t need to be a religious text at all. It simply needs to be something that is important to the person being sworn in. Technically, you could be sworn in on a copy of the constitution itself, or some handwritten letters from your mother, or a stack of hentai comics.

              • Almacca@aussie.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 day ago

                Technically it’s a performative ritual and serves no real purpose. The swearing of the oath is the only important bit and should be enough. You humans and your weird attachment to symbols and artifacts. :)

              • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Coming from a place where we practice laïcity, it’s a weird way to separate the State and religion to say that people can swear allegiance on a religious book.

            • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              ·
              2 days 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.

          • rayyy@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 day ago

            he didn’t even place a hand on the Bible.

            Fact!. For all his claims of being a “Christian”, he couldn’t be bothered.

          • Capt. Wolf@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days 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.

        • D_C@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Lies!
          His hands are far too tiny for his fingers to cross.

    • blattrules@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 days ago

      The “best of his ability” part is troubling because I have zero faith in his ability to do anything except turn our country into a cesspool.

      • gamer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        Although all it would take is one phone call to release Kilmar, Trump never learned how to use a phone. Checkmate, libtards.