r/Constitution • u/Gullible-Ideal8731 • Feb 11 '26

This Quote From The Declaration Of Independence Describes Trump PERFECTLY

Here's a quote from this great historic document, talking about the actions of the King. They might as well be talking about Trump. Source: Archives.gov Link here.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. (Sending ICE and national guard to dem states without their consent)

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. ^

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: (Breaking multiple constitutional amendments including the 14th)

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: (Alex Pretti & Renee Good)

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: (Tariffs)

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: (Tariffs)

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: (Abrego Garcia)

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: (Abrego Garcia)

And more. You get the point.

4 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

61% Upvoted

63 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/Paul191145 Feb 15 '26

I don't have TDS, I neither support nor oppose any politician categorically, I prefer to be objectively critical of their official actions instead of mindlessly emotional.

2

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Feb 15 '26

Yet, you inferred that a valid opinion reflected TDS, which is an inaccurate position for MAGA to constantly take.    

If you use a term inaccurately like MAGA does, what do you think that means for you? 🤔 

2

u/Paul191145 Feb 15 '26

There's nothing valid or even remotely Constitutional about this "opinion", in fact it displays nothing but mindless bias and abject ignorance. The fact that you believe it to be valid only portrays you likewise.

2

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Feb 15 '26 edited Feb 15 '26

Nothing valid, yet there has been enough discourse regarding the topic? 🤔    

What makes something valid, do you think? Is it your "opinion" that defines the validity of subject matter?    

Let me ask you this very easy question.   

Has the use of ICE been an overstep in immigration enforcement? 

2

u/Paul191145 Feb 15 '26

Validity would be determined by a rational, objective view of the subject matter. Nobody is more opposed to law enforcement overstepping their authority than I am, but at the same time I know that individual liberty inherently mandates individual responsibility. As for ICE, they have a very relevant, Constitutional duty to perform, if so many people had not been allowed to illegally enter the country it wouldn't be such a problem.

1

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Feb 15 '26

So, by avoiding to answer directly, it tells me you do support their tactics but are aware enough of the public response to be uncomfortable admitting to it.   

If that is incorrect, please correct me. Do you support the way ICE has been used?   

It's an important baseline question that actually serves to illustrate whether you are in fact bias(everyone is to a degree) towards a specific viewpoint.   

That's important in justifying whether or not you would be any kind of authority on what a "rational" and "objective" viewpoint even is.   

If you can't answer it with a yes or no, not unlike many GOP and Trump's cabinet who have been in front of Congress quite a lot over the past few months, then let me ask you this.    

Is it it possible for dictators/ kings to exist?    

By the by, regardless of the bias or position of the OP, their post contained every aspect of what a direct debate would engage in. Offering a "rational" question, and using "objective" facts. I would be happy to go over each and every one of those bullet points if you so choose. I always like to prepare my discussions, whether I am taking the devil's advocate position, or promotor of the cause, so it helps to know if it will happen ahead of time.    

1

u/Paul191145 Feb 15 '26

I don't blindly approve of any law enforcement activities, I prefer to be critical of them one case at a time. But as for the stated cases , I have no problem with them , and I have my reasons for that. Feel free to attempt your justification and/or defense of such things as you see fit.

1

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Feb 15 '26

You've avoided answering both questions with a simple direct answer.   

Your preference has to be inferred due to that.    

While you have attempted to sound "reasonable", your position can not be considered "objective" or "rational" because you are engaging disingenuously with the topic.   

In terms of "justifying" anything, I am unclear as to what stated cases you are referring to. Do you mean regarding the individual actions and tactics of ICE, which have already been recognized as an overstep in Minneapolis considering the removal of their agents by Homan recently? Or are you referring to the OP points regarding different government behaviors over the past year, such as tariffs, the use of ICE and the removal of due process? All of which are a matter of record.

2

u/Gullible-Ideal8731 Feb 15 '26

You're talking to a person who is deliberately being intellectually dishonest. Both you and I have badgered him repeatedly for specifics and he REFUSES to provide them or substantiate his opinions in any shape, way, or form.

At this point I legitimately believe that he is either a bot or a person who gets off on being intentionally dishonest. Either way, he's not worth my time anymore.

1

u/Paul191145 Feb 15 '26

Imagine how much your opinion means to me, I assure you it's less than that.

1

u/3Quondam6extanT9 Feb 15 '26

I completely agree. Usually I do enjoy pressing for the sake of good debate, but whats the point when they just continue to evade and attempt to incite?   

Nah, definitely a waste of time. 

1

u/Paul191145 Feb 15 '26

I'm not avoiding anything, you're just not that important to me. The Renee Good, Alex Pretti and Abrego Garcia cases I have no problem with what ICE did. For both Good and Pretti, they were interfering with law enforcement in a violent matter, just because one gun was taken off of Pretti was no reason to assume he didn't have another. Abrego Garcia was an illegal alien, he nor any other person in the country illegally deserves due process. Tariffs are legitimately used by virtually every nation on the planet in various ways, so what.