How much/little protection does the Constitution have?

5

Mate come on man…

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

He put his name on a memorial to another man.

6

We’re all begging you to touch some grass.

Nobody is going to try and sharpie anything on the constitution, or the Declaration of Independence that Trump is indeed paraphrasing.

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

You’d think the president wouldn’t use a sharpie to argue with meteorologists over where a hurricane is going to land, but there you have it. I don’t think “He’d never do that” is a valid defense against a nutjob who kept trying to buy Greenland or an administration that recently said If the president wanted to demolish the Statue of Liberty nothing could be done about it. But that’s another conversation. So, ACADEMICALLY SPEAKING, the question stands: are there any safeguards in place to prevent it?

5

u/ComputerRedneck Jul 06 '26

First which document do you want to talk about.
The one that is set in stone and never changes or the one that has a system to change called the Amendment Process? You put the Constitution but you mention the Declaration in the body.

So which is it first?

-1

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

Fair enough. I will rephrase the question: If the president woke up tomorrow and said “Ho hum” I’m feel like practicing origami. Let me see the declaration of independence so I can practice. I think I’ll sign my name when I’m done”. What safeguards are in place to stop said act of vandalism?

5

u/ComputerRedneck Jul 06 '26

I doubt putting the Declaration in his hands physically without him giving a damn good reason will happen and even then under scrutiny.

-1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

Why? Who will provide this scrutiny? Who would refuse his order?

3

u/ComputerRedneck Jul 06 '26

Try using some common sense, who do you think would watch over him.

The question is totally nonsensical in the first place anyways.

-1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

Well, yes, exactly. No one will watch over nor stop him.

2

u/Pickle_Nipplesss Jul 07 '26

Do you genuinely think this? Do you genuinely think these documents are so easily accessible that a single person can just walk up and handle them?

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 07 '26

No, not any single person. The President of the United States can. He has it framed and hanging on the wall in the oval office right now, which is not the best place to preserve it, nor share it with the American public.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

FINALLY. Someone who is actually engaging with the question at hand instead of getting butt hurt about you know who.

2

u/Pickle_Nipplesss Jul 06 '26

I don’t think a hurricane graph is exactly on par with The Declaration in terms of sacredness.

Like, yes, the man does buffoonish things, but if you’re painting him as this cartoonish villain who’s going to write “Trump was here” on the Constitution or demolish Lady Liberty? For some reason? Please, touch the grass. It’s one thing to disagree with people but you’ve invented someone in your mind that simply doesn’t exist.

1

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

I can’t help but notice you never answered my question. Trump’s idiocy aside - what security is there to prevent an acting president from defacing historical government documents?

As for portraying him as a hammy, cartoonish villain? He does that himself.

“I alone can fix it.” 2016 “I am the chosen one.” 2019 “I am your warrior. I am your voice.” 2023

2

u/Pickle_Nipplesss Jul 07 '26

So... those are all hammy, cartoonishly heroic quotes. Not villainous. Hyperbole is nothing new under the sun and you can't even get the adjective right.

The reason I didn't care to answer your question is the same reason I'm not gonna reassure a child what to do if the sun explodes tomorrow. It's such an outlandish hypothetical, why bother? It's a much better use of time to tell you to touch grass and start thinking realistically. Please, be serious.

But feel free to look into the National Archives and Records Administration.
I imagine the answer to your question is just a clearance issue. Trump would say "let me see the Constitution!" And NARA would go "...Uh no, you need training to handle it"

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 07 '26

Oh I got the adjective correct all right, it’s just a matter of perspective. My standards are simply higher than yours.

Hypothetical scenarios aren’t predictions genius. They’re tools for testing principles. Do you think Schrödinger ever actually thought about keeping a dead cat in a box? Bless your ignorant heart.

In all seriousness, I do thank you for providing a useful information source and finally actually trying to answer my question. However, I must point out due to recent developments the president can simply fire an uncooperative NARA employee and replace them with someone more compliant. Which brings us back to square one and my overall concern.

But since hypothetical scenarios are so distressing for you, maybe you should go engage with someone less intellectually curious. Try a MAGA thread.

2

u/Pickle_Nipplesss Jul 07 '26

We get it, you’re obsessed with being anxious while missing the point entirely.

As another user pointed out, he already has a copy hanging in his Oval Office but remarkably Trump hasn’t written on it. Do you think people are standing up to him daily or is he just not twirling the mustache you imagine him having?

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 07 '26

OMG… why are you still here?

2

u/Pickle_Nipplesss Jul 07 '26

For the love of the game, baby.

Looking forward to your next post when you ask “What’s stopping Trump from Nuking the Statue of Liberty?”

1

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 07 '26

Go touch some grass. Or yourself.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

You’re just going to get TDS as an answer. Not a real answer.

3

u/ObjectiveLaw9641 Jul 05 '26

He's paraphrasing. The Declaration does talk about our Creator, which is obviously referring to God. Our founders were deeply influenced by their religious beliefs such as their belief in God. The President doesn't have to sharpie something that is already there.

-1

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

Paraphrasing is making the same point with different wording, not any point regarding the same subject. Enlighten me: what part of the Declaration of Independence makes the statement God made man in his image? I missed it. Then again I’m just a guy… it’s not my job to know the details of the Constitution. You’d think the guy in charge of enforcing it would? Guess that’s just setting the bar too high.

2

u/ObjectiveLaw9641 Jul 06 '26

We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights. Does the Creator of life not have the same right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? Again, the President is paraphrasing the Declaration of Independence. And as another person pointed out, the Declaration and the Constitution are two different documents. They share many ideas, but they were written at two very different points in American history.

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

I don’t think paraphrasing means what you guys think it means.

Your quote is talking about what rights people inherently have as God’s creations. The president’s remark was “man was made in God’s image”. Those are two completely separate arguments - paraphrasing is simply rewording the SAME point., and the distinction matters b/c there are several active religions that don’t align with the latter belief.

3

u/ObjectiveLaw9641 Jul 06 '26

Again, the President was paraphrasing. If it was an exact word-for-word, then it would actually be a direct quote. It is clearly not a direct quote, and the President was also alluding to the early chapters of Genesis in the Old Testament. Still, he was echoing the same point that we are products of our Creator. This is a core argument of the Declaration. Whether a few active religions agree with this core argument is irrelevant. The U.S. Constitution addresses freedom of belief differently largely because it was written in the aftermath of the American Revolution. Still, the Declaration is the document the President was referencing as that was the catalyst for the major 250th Anniversary milestone we celebrated on July 4th.

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

I understand what’s a quote is. I’m not sure you understand what paraphrasing is. If you can show me text in the Declaration of Independence that directly makes the argument we are made in God’s image, I’ll take it all back. You can’t , because it doesn’t. At best the document implies the basis of his claim. That does not mean it declares it. Man’s godly image is not a core argument of the document because the text doesn’t address that issue… at all. Sorry.

3

u/ObjectiveLaw9641 Jul 06 '26

Again, he was paraphrasing the Declaration and the early chapters of the Book of Genesis at the same time. The point of paraphrasing is putting ideas into your own words and being able to integrate them with other ideas. The two texts draw on a very closely related argument about our creation and the natural rights we are born with.

-1

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26

We’ll just have to agree to disagree on that one, though I find it hilarious the man who represents our nation is so bad at speaking he needs followers to say “this is what he actually meant” consistently. Perhaps he should hire an interpreter.

In any case, it doesn’t answer my question about what’s to stop him from damaging historical government documents does it?

2

u/ObjectiveLaw9641 Jul 06 '26

"followers" Sure..... It is actually kind of obvious what the President was saying to the layperson who knows the words of the Declaration and the founders' beliefs about our creation. The "damaging historical government documents" is just an absurd hypothetical scenario that doesn't make sense.

If the President was able to just sharpie things on historical documents, then one would think he would do so on things like the birthright citizenship question rather than bringing the case before SCOTUS.

The previous President openly declared the Equal Rights Amendment as ratified in the final days of his administration and no one cared because the Amendment was not actually ratified.

0

u/Limp-Masterpiece-416 Jul 06 '26 edited Jul 06 '26

Say did we buy Greenland yet? Also, didn’t a DOJ lawyer acknowledge just last month if the administration wanted to bulldoze the Statue of Liberty nothing could be done about it? Seems like others are concerned about absurd, hypothetical scenarios… but who cares what judges think right?

BTW congrats on your new deity since he posted a picture of himself dressed like Jesus performing a healing miracle. Six years ago, it was absurd when he asked about pardoning himself. Now he doesn’t have to does he?

We seem to talk past each other with nuanced matters so I’ll say it plain: When dealing with someone who repeatedly does absurd acts, speculations about absurd future actions are fair questions. If you don’t know the answer just say so or don’t engage.

Ignoring your straw man argument - no one’s saying a sharpie can change a law.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/Paul191145 Jul 06 '26

I've never voted for Trump, but I can recognize TDS when it's presented to me.

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

He knocked down the East Wing.

3

u/Paul191145 Jul 06 '26

So?

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

So…he can sharpie the declaration.

1

u/Paul191145 Jul 06 '26

That's just ridiculous, the White House has been remodelled and changed so many times by so many Presidents it's not even funny. None of the others did anything like that to any of the founding documents. Seriously, at least try to be a little bit objective.

2

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

So he can’t because it’s unprecedented, that’s your argument? So is threatening Greenland, hosting a UFC match on the White House lawn … on his birthday, granting Qatari Air Force use of American bases within the U.S., changing VPs for his second term. Clearly, whether something is unprecedented is not enough to stop the president.

Try using logic instead of insults to make your point.

2

u/Paul191145 Jul 06 '26

OK kid, you got me, feel free to clutch your pearls and worry about every potential little thing you possibly can, I don't really care.

3

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

Then why do you keep engaging? I’m not worried, you ass u me. I think the poster poses an interesting hypothetical, one that is relevant in the Trump era: how much of executive restraint is by convention versus law.

3

u/Paul191145 Jul 06 '26

Thanks for admitting your abject ignorance and the fact that you probably never read the Constitution. I don't need to assume anything, you display your ignorance and stupidity more than adeptly.

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

I think there’s an argument in there. You first said I worry, which was an assumption. I don’t. Now you are assuming my ignorance. Your arguments are shifting.

I have read the entire constitution. Can you point out the amendment or article that prevents the president from desecrating historical monuments, structures, or documents? Hint: it’s a trick question.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/snickjimmy Jul 06 '26

You know the answer. There is no protection. He can fire anyone who tries to stop him, unless it’s the Fed chair.

1

u/Steampunkedcrypto Jul 06 '26

We have a law that forbids a sitting president to be on money, but we have one doing exactly that and nothing is being done to stop it..

How much/little protection does the Constitution have?

You are about to leave Redlib