My wife is planning a candlelight vigil for the U.S. Constitution on Sept. 17, Constitution Day, which will feature readings from the charter and other founding documents.
We’re interested in developing a list of ways in which Trump has violated or directly threatened Constitutional precepts and traditions (including Amendments).
For example, the emoluments clause by enriching himself during his tenure, taking what amount to bribes, etc.; encouraging the denial of due process; imposing tariffs without the consent of Congress (or abrogating the power of the purse); essentially declaring war on US cities and invading them; etc.
Obviously, most of these will fall under Section II, on the Presidency, and the various Amendments.
We do not need an exhaustive list (which would be too exhausting), just a good number of significant and egregious examples that, ideally, would be correlated to the relevant section of the Constitution.
We have found this article from People’s World, the Marxist-Leninist successor to the Daily Worker newspaper. It’s a starting point, but it only goes up to June 25.
It would also be good to include positive news of attempts Trump has made that have been unsuccessful, to demonstrate that all is not lost (yet).
You realize Congress can approve emoluments right?
And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever,
I have no doubt this Congress would give their approval if necessary.
I would fully endorse the Republican Congress, acting on party lines, giving Donald Trump an explicit approval to accept any emolument. It’d be 1930 all over again.
But until they give that approval, he’s in violation.
Good question. Perhaps Congress should introduce a bill to give any citizen standing to sue for a violation of the emoluments clause.
It appears that’s the only way for Congress to enforce any law these days. It’s somewhat like “keeping order in a nursery with a loaded gun rather than a switch”, to quote Lieutenant Wong on a similar situation.
Lots of first amendment freed of speech violations: pressuring media companies to give him favorable press, deporting students who support Gaza, pressuring universities to do away with DEI policies, firing federal workers who don’t follow the party line etc.
Then there is the violation of due process by deporting people without allowing them to defend themselves in court, and arresting them when the show up.
I’m trying to focus on demonstrable claims, not theoretical. I nixed the whole conversation of the Religious Liberty Commission, for example, because they haven’t done anything in conflict with the Constitution yet.
The Trump administration has continued and defended in court such programs as Section 702, the Hemisphere Project, and Upstream Collection. While the Trump administration doesn’t appear to be the originator of these efforts, and it’s likely that the Supreme Court would rule that they’re generally legal, Trump has made statements to the effect that these sorts of programs violate the 4th Amendment rights of people. Ref Thus it’s quite questionable that he would turn around and support them, once they’re under his control. It strongly implies that he simply objects to the use of these powers against him, but he enjoys having what he views as unconstitutional, criminal powers over others and has no longer term view on what’s best for America after he leaves office (however that might be).
Likewise, we have Trump’s attempts to participate in the hacking of the DNC. While the Bill of Rights has no particular bearing on the activities of foreign governments, a strong defender of the Bill of Rights would recognize the danger of a Constitutional loophole like the idea of outsourcing hacking of Americans to foreign nations, and be wildly angry about any such thing - let alone try to take advantage of such a thing. Ref
Trump has supported Stop-and-Frisk policies, historically. Ref (PDF)
The White House is currently accused of using racial profiling as probable cause. Ref
Fifth Amendment Due Process
I feel like it merits pointing out the basic purposes of the Due Process clause of the Fifth Amendment. On the one hand, it’s to ensure that people who go to jail are actually guilty and that a reasonable methodology was followed to guarantee that. But, the thing which makes it a component of the Bill of Rights is to prevent political targeting of select persons or groups. That is absolutely loathsome to the Constitution. In general, everyone should be prosecuted equally, based on the evidence and with good faith.
Family separations of people legally applying for asylum. Ref
Threats to “Lock her Up” or otherwise target opponents for political reasons. Whether this was followed through with, or not, from a political standpoint this is inarguably worse than flag burning, so far as attacks on the core of America go. Leading people into cheers for it is reprehensible. Ref
Targeted firings of Inspector Generals over working with whistleblowers or otherwise acting to prevent criminal and unconstitutional activities. Ref1Ref2Ref3
Pardon of Roger Stone, for committing obstruction of justice, witness tampering, etc. Ref1Ref2
Pardon of Paul Manafort for witness tampering. Ref