Spyke
lemmy.world

"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.

190
Kecessareply
sh.itjust.works

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

17
Mooncheezereply
lemmy.world

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.

24

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.

8
lemmy.dbzer0.com

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.

10

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. :)

1

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.

0

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.

10

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

Fact!. For all his claims of being a "Christian", he couldn't be bothered.

6

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.

5
D_Creply

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

4

Swearing on the Bible only holds any weight if you’re actually religious. Trump is, at most, non-practicing.

10
blattrulesreply
lemmy.world

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.

10
gamerreply

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

5

He was thinking of the concepts of his own constitution, not the current one....

2

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.

15
lemmy.world

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

6
lemmy.world

Only in the polluted Russian soil, everywhere else, it would be considered a bio-hazard.

7

It would be a mixture of Diet Coke and cheeseburgers leaking out into the healthy soil.

2

He's gonna make a great urinal one day. Probably the most popular in the world....

3
ttrpg.network

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.

116
infosec.pub

I saw a guy today with two bumper stickers. One said "Trump" the other said "I love the constitution". I wonder what he would say about this?

40
wagesj45reply
fedia.io

Nonsense. He would say nonsense. Because they don't care. They care as much about sounding serious as they do about other people.

43

As long as there's some undertone of solid racism in the administration, they won't care. That's all this has ever really been about.

10
Lightsongreply
lemmy.world

They don't really love The Constitution. They only like the first two.

15
lemmy.world

They think free speech means no one is allowed to disagree with them. Otherwise they say their right to free speech is being violated.

7
Suite404reply
lemmy.world

"Help! I'm being disagreed with! Arrest then for violating my freedom of speech!"

7
lemmy.world

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

69
nkat2112reply
sh.itjust.works

Yes. In fact, you couldn't be more correct about the matter.

I would describe his response to the question as fully preposterous.

35
lemmy.world

If Biden said that the headline would be "Sleepy Dementia Joe Biden Doesn't Remember Oath of Office He Took Three Months Ago". It would be brought up in every segment on every news station for weeks. Trump says it and the news is like "That's kinda weird... Anyways, wonder what Elon is doing..."

17

conservative owned MSMs have done that the whole last year. yes all the msm are currently owned by a conservative partially or fully.

MALONE is the person behind the sudden switch of CNN.

1

I would describe it as treason; specifically, giving aid and comfort to a domestic enemy (himself).

1
lemm.ee

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!

58
M0oP0oreply
mander.xyz

THERE IS NO ADULT WAITING IN THE WINGS TO SWOOP IN AND SAVE YOUR NATION! BE THE CHANGE YOU WANT TO SEE! THE REASON NO ONE IS STOPPING THIS IS EVERYONE IS BUSY ASKING "WHY IS THIS SHIT ALLOWED!"!

11
lemm.ee

What are you doing then? I see a lot of people chastising others for not doing anything while also not doing anything

0
lemmy.ml

I think the fact he said 'your nation' instead of 'our nation' should answer your question

6
1984reply
lemmy.today

I dont even trust the voting system. There has been many attempt at manipulating the results. Maybe America didnt allow this.

Doesnt matter though. This guy is awful and dangerous as president.

2
lemm.ee

Yes, I'm asking why the other branches of government are allowing this

3
lemmy.world

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.

-President Trump, just this year.

56

He treats it with all the seriousness that he treats his wedding vows.

11

The only time when "love and unity" isn't the correct answer he uses it.

14
prolereply
lemmy.blahaj.zone

This is what you get for running two genocidaires.

Ahhh there it is... Finally getting honest are we?

2
lemmy.world

What do you mean? The Democrats ran horribly unpopular genocidal candidates and lost. Do you disagree?

1
zbyte64reply
awful.systems

Only disagree on how much they suck. There are many more reasons why they lost.

1
lemmy.ca

Obviously that is a larger factor for mainstream American acceptance than distant genocide. Most voters have no concept of political theory or world events.

-2

Virtually nobody cared about her being black or a woman.

Her policies were horrible period.

Most importantly: She got nominated by the DNC because of her horrible policies. Not despite of them.

0
redhat421reply
lemmy.world

I'm mad at the Democrats for under signing a genocide thus disaffecting their would be voters.

-37
Pup Birureply
aussie.zone

the world is not binary. there are many people who bare part of the responsibility:

  • the republican party - all of them
  • republican voters
  • the democratic party
  • no-voters (who didn’t want to “support genocide” and now you have a worse genocide and a bunch of other horrible shit including a shit load of extra war crimes in ukraine for the foreseeable future)
  • the media

these and many more can have played a part all at the same time

37
lemmy.world

The media is largely controlled by billionaires and thus republicans by association.

4
Pup Birureply
aussie.zone

it’s worth calling out all on their own because it surfaces a specific problem… just saying “billionaires ruin everything” isn’t helpful, because it simply shifts blame to a nebulous concept that’s further removed from everyday people

also, following orders is no excuse

4
lemmy.world

That's valid.

There used to be laws to force news stations to be bipartisan and show both sides.

Copypasta:

The "Fairness Doctrine," which once required broadcasters to present contrasting viewpoints on controversial issues, was eliminated by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) in 1987.

3

Most of them now seem to follow a fucked-up interpretation of the Fairness Doctrine that requires them to always give the impression that there are no meaningful differences between the parties, which translates into painting Republicans as a perfectly normal, reasonable political party.

1
huppakeereply
lemm.ee

Ikr, so hard to blame the republicans and the people who didn't vote for the shit us is in rn /s

21

The Republicans are much, much worse. They actually fight for their agenda when they get power, and their agenda is always horrible.

I feel like this election is just like the last one Trump came to power in. He didn't win, the other side lost.

Sucks.

1
lemmy.world

Yeah, we sit around and laugh about how stupid he is while he ignores the law and constitution to the detriment of the freedom of citizens and immigrants alike.

We are literally that stupid.

14
midwest.social

More research is always good, as it can deepen our understanding, but the basic outline of what's going on is already known. A lot of people just don't want to believe it, because we're all stuck on the metaphor that we're all captains of the ship inside our own heads. You see it in this thread; people want to blame non-voters, as if millions of people all had perfect information and all made decisions based upon it through conscious reasoning. Because they're just—I dunno—bad people? (Which is a completely bonkers belief when you start to dig into it.)

Actually, neuroscience tells us that consciousness doesn't really exist, except as an emergent phenomenon of sensory experience. Brain scans show that thoughts, feelings, and decisions occur before we're consciously aware of them; the conscious mind is basically a rationalization machine, inventing narratives about why we did a thing or felt a certain way, only after the fact. And, it's notoriously bad at it. (The Misattribution of Arousal is one of the classic examples.) So, if you can affect the way that somebody's brain works, you can in many ways control what the they think and feel.

And that's exactly what authoritarian demagogues do.

7

Same thing that's been going on for millenia now. Humans being humans, look around the globe and through history. This is not new and we are not special.

Sucks though.

5
lemm.ee

I've concluded that MAGA people are as afraid of diversity, equity, and inclusion as normal people are of fascism. Their brains react to things like social acceptance of transgender people with the same horror to which our brains react to Trump sending people to concentration camps.

4

There has been a lot of study done to 'normal' Germans after Hitler took over, I expect the result to overlap.

4
Almaccareply
aussie.zone

I've been thinking that for nearly ten years now.

9
Almaccareply
aussie.zone

Thankyou for making me feel very old :) Btw, don't trust anyone with something to sell.

6
lemm.ee

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

35
Maiqreply
lemy.lol

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/

6
reddwarfreply
feddit.nl

"to the best of my ability"

Should you wonder how the SC will argue when they need to rule on trump regarding anything done unconstitutional, here's their out and logic they will use. They will determine that trump acted "to the best of my his ability"

2

Can't wait for the mental gymnastics required from the complicit press to accept that we shouldn't expect too much from 'the best of his abilities', while simultaneously accepting he's that an infallible king who's word is law.

2
lemmy.world

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.

25

I don’t know why

Because nobody is both willing and able to impose accountability on him.

2

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

25
lemmy.world

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

21
midwest.social

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!

21
lemmy.world

November is far away shouldn't we do say July 4th. Give our country the greatest gift on it's birthday.

3

Hey, you’re really on to something …we could even have like an expression or stanza or something. “Remember, remember the fifth of November” sounds good.

2
lemm.ee

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?

20
lemm.ee

What does it take to get this guy out of office? Genuine question. We impeached this guy like twice but it didn't go through

19

Super-duper majority, gotta survive the Democrat-defectors

5

He didn't bother putting his hand on the Bible. Not that I care, but you'd think his "omg christian patriot doggy mommy" followers would say something.

10
lemmy.world

At this point I’m just curious how long this will go on. What would have to tilt for a group of politicians to overhaul his ass and the r’s supporting him?

18
ijedi1234reply
sh.itjust.works

I believe it will continue until the politicians are scared of an angry mob kicking in their door.

23
lemmy.world

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.

17

No, no he knows what he's doing. He's just not doing anything for anyone else other than himself and his ilk.

2

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

15
lemmy.ml

"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.

12

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

2
sh.itjust.works

I've been saying this for a long time.

The people who stayed home or voted third party are still trying to blame Dems for this, because the Dems didn't try hard enough and "didn't inspire them".

Yeah? Well if you need a politician to inspire you to show up and fill out a piece of paper that will help protect marginalized groups, then you're a piece of shit.

I'm not a Dem. Never will be. But I understood what was on the line.

Gaza is gonna get glassed, my gay and trans loved ones are in immediate danger, among God knows how much more heinous shit is going down.

They said they were gonna do this. And a huge group of people who wanted to be seen as morally pure decided to sit it out to feel superior.

You're not superior. You're a monster. The Dems shouldn't have to "inspire" you to stop a fascist regime. It's American exceptionalism at it's fucking worst.

Fuck ALL of them. All of em.

15
lemmy.world

We can blame the MAGA crowd, too. There's enough blame to go around. We can also blame the strategists who killed the momentum that Harris/Walz had.

9

Apologies, but I only skimmed your reply. I don't disagree with you that non-voters share the blame. I just don't want to give anybody a free pass here.

2
sh.itjust.works

It's not the Dems fault that so many people didn't give a shit about marginalized groups.

3

I think the Dem strategists who say we need to abandon pronouns cost more votes than they gained. Need more primary challengers and voters to steer the party.

1

Don't forget calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The Gaza virtue signallers really hated that.

2

She was the second shittiest candidate, but in a two horse race, why would anyone choose otherwise? Baffling.

2

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.

10

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.

9

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

6

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

5

He is performing plausible deniability. Without saying directly yes or no, he is still open to the idea of not upholding the constitution. It is like saying "I can neither confirm nor deny."

5

But he vowed to uphold the constitution, it's a requirement of being sworn in as president

3
lemm.ee

I AGREE! The Founders had NO IDEA what the Future would be LIKE when they Wrote it!

-People who VIGOROUSLY DEFEND School Shooters because of the Second Amendment!

5
lemmy.ca

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

5
lemmy.ca

He knows. He just hasn't consolidated enough power yet to outright openly say he doesn't give a shit. But keep waving those protest signs around guys. I'm sure that'll slow him down.

5
arrow74reply
lemm.ee

That's the issue isn't it? Things aren't bad enough that armed rebellion would be successful. If you tried you'd die and the vast majority will simply call you a terrorist and move on. Maybe you'll get some popularity like luigi while the state works on executing you.

So instead people protest, but at best that may swing one or two votes in congress, but not enough to stop anything.

But as things get progressively worse and the state becomes more authoritarian revolution will also be harder as many will be tossed into a gulag before they can take up arms.

Plus any armed resistance will be used as an excuse to declare martial law.

Seems like a no win scenario. The current best chance is he has a stroke and Vance fails to govern effectively

14

The solution is to work towards forming and building up antifascist guerilla resistance blocks, so that when shit really starts getting too real for people, resistance groups are there ready to go

Yes, it of course would have been better to do it all earlier, but as you said..

It's super frustrating, for sure. You can plainly see what's gonna happen, and yet most people are too clueless to support it

3

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

4

I'd more believe he said he doesn't know because he doesn't know what it is but has been briefed about it. Instead of some tongue-in-cheek admission to further fascism. If he didn't know and hadn't been briefed I think he would've lied that he's the expert on the Constitution.

Still shouldn't be president tho.

3

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

2
lemmy.world

That's because 1. Trump didn't want to win election and 2. He has lost is mental faculties. Age,spite and cocaine abuse has caught up with him

2

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

2