Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The 1st amendment is thought and discussion, with mind and mouth. Not actions, you take to make a stand and become a Domestic Enemy, to the words of the US Constitution...
Please don't confuse the 2 to disrupt the discussion, plz.
And I quote, "To defend the US Constitution from all enemies, Foreign & Domestic"
Yep. It is one thing to disagree, it is one thing to voice opposition or promote ideology that conflicts with our form of government, but it is another to organize with the intent to overthrow our current form of government and that is EXACTLY what progressives have been doing for over a 125 years as they have sought to infiltrate government and change it away from its original intent. That is the act of a domestic enemy trying to usurp the liberties of the individual.
Correct, our founding fathers wanted to make it hard as Chinese arithmetic, for the government to take people liberties.
I wish to further that intent.
As long as it stays within the bounds of it. I agree that there is a difference between free speech and active intent to dismantle our liberties, but the rules and laws you put in to stop such have to be very carefully considered as such things can easily be turned into weapons against liberty.
So why didn't you protest Hillarys Foundation? Looks like now that she has no more influence to sell, the Foundation will probably close soon.
Ah, the old Clinton-did-it-too sidetrack.
Technically, payments were not made to her business, but to a foundation that then distributed the funds to others. Whereas the funds coming to the Trumps are not distributed elsewhere.
But in any case, Clinton will not be sworn in as president on Friday. Trump will be.
I'm surprised you didn't hear about this. It's all over the news.
It doesn't offend me, but it apparently offends Trump, as he is ignoring it (or ignorant of what is in it).
You say this in the face of eight years of a president who called the Constitution flawed and mocked American tradition, who violated it and dismissed it by circumventing its design?
It is like you people don't even think about your past.
Technically, payments were not made to her business, but to a foundation that then distributed the funds to others. Whereas the funds coming to the Trumps are not distributed elsewhere.
But in any case, Clinton will not be sworn in as president on Friday. Trump will be.
I'm surprised you didn't hear about this. It's all over the news.
Technically...(wink)
LOL! The poll of public opinion, saw it differently.
I think you missed the point on this, it's not "profit," it is "payment."
When the payment is made, he is in violation of the Constitution.
The Constitution does not specify that he may accept payments and then at some later date, reimburse the treasury.
He is not to accept the payment in the first place.
Funny how the words in Constitution have changed and more words inserted into the constitution without amendments, is now TRUMP fault, for giving up his vast wealth and profit, so he in no way profits from the office. The only thing that will satisfy you, that he is not doing any wrong, no matter how much he proves to you he isn't, is a bullet in his head.
Now back to how the constitution has changed without amendment and how we fix that flaw.
If we are going to fuss about about foundations, then surely Trump's foundation, where he used tax-exempt donations to buy himself out of legal troubles, purchase sports memorabilia, bribe an attorney general ... would certainly bring into question whether this was even a tax-exempt charitable foundation at all.
But in any case, we are talking about the legal interpretation of the Constitution, not a poll of public opinion on the Constitution.
The Constitution is clear that neither Trump nor his trust is allowed to accept payments.
Not much wiggle room here, Bent.
Well, technically... The people were the judge and jury on the Clinton Foundations shady dealings and practices, but what does that have to do with the changing of the US Constitution without amendment, and the fix to keep that flaw at bay.
Forcing an alteration of the Constitution, without amending it. The constitution today, has way more words than it did the day it was ratified. All added by laws.
Unless your job falls under these letters,...SCOTUS,what you say means nothing.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
