The problem is not a Republican verses Democrat issue. The Question is do we believe in the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Do we want to continue to be a Constitutional Republic?
Do we believe in the 1st amendment to the constitution?
- Trump has violated the Constitution by getting Jimmy Kimmel and Steven Colberte fired. This is a violation of Freedom of Speech and freedom of the press
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Key Protections
- Freedom of Religion
- Establishment Clause: Government cannot establish an official religion.
- Free Exercise Clause: People are free to practice their religion without government interference.
- Freedom of Speech
- Protects the right to express ideas and opinions without government censorship or restriction (though not absolute—limitations exist for incitement, threats, obscenity, etc.).
- Freedom of the Press
- Ensures the media can operate independently of government control and serve as a watchdog on power.
- Right to Assemble
- Guarantees the ability to gather peacefully for protests, rallies, and meetings.
- Right to Petition the Government
- Allows citizens to appeal to the government for changes, grievances, or reforms without fear of punishment.
If so, Trumps getting Steven Colbert and Jimy Kimmel off the air is violation of Article 2 Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the press.
Some allege that he was fired for poor ratings
July 18, 2025: Trump, on Truth Social, wrote:
“I absolutely love that Colbert got fired. His talent was even less than his ratings. I hear Jimmy Kimmel is next.” Hollywood Reporter+1
(So this is a clear statement by Trump saying he wanted — or expected — Jimmy Kimmel to be fired, in that same post.)
Later (July 30, 2025), Trump added a clarification rejecting the idea that he was solely responsible for Colbert’s firing:
“Everybody is saying that I was solely responsible for the firing of Stephen Colbert …” Rolling Stone
He also made repeated references to Kimmel in media coverage and commentary following the suspension of Kimmel’s show in September 2025, celebrating the suspension as a “firing” by ABC and suggesting he might “test ABC.” People.com+1
Brendan Carr, as FCC Chair, has suggested that ABC and affiliated stations face regulatory pressure if they continued airing Jimmy Kimmel’s show, and has referred to actions broadcasters could take; his remarks have been interpreted by many as demands or threats to have Kimmel removed. Below are key dates and his statements:
- September 17, 2025: On the Benny Johnson podcast, Carr said of Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on the Charlie Kirk murderer:
- · September 17, 2025: On the Benny Johnson podcast, Carr said of Jimmy Kimmel’s comments on the Charlie Kirk murderer:
- Carr called those remarks “truly sick,” and said the FCC had a “strong case” to hold Kimmel and the company he works for accountable if the company didn’t “take action on Kimmel.” People.com+1
- In related remarks, he warned ABC and local stations:
- “We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” referencing possible FCC review of a “news-distortion” complaint against ABC stations over Kimmel. FIRE+3People.com+3FIRE+3
- He also said:
- “There are calls for Kimmel to be fired. I think you could certainly see a path forward for suspension over this.” People.com
- · Subsequently, Carr attempted to downplay the severity of his threat, claiming he did not intend to threaten license revocations. Deadline+2Variety+2
After Jimmy Kimmel’s firing Trump said:
“They should have fired him a long time ago … He was fired for lack of talent.” PBS
He also called Kimmel’s comments “horrible” and reiterated that the show was canceled largely for ratings and content reasons. PBS
On September 24, 2025, Trump criticized ABC’s decision to reinstate Kimmel and threatened to “test ABC” financially, suggesting that their reversal might amount to an illegal campaign contribution:
He claimed ABC had told White House officials the show was canceled. Axios
He said he would “test ABC,” referencing prior legal actions against the network. People.com+2Axios+2
He slammed Kimmel’s return as supporting “Democratic propaganda.” People.com
In a posted video, Trump said:
“Jimmy Kimmel was fired because he had bad ratings more than anything else, and he said a horrible thing…” YouTube
After Jimmy Kimmel’s firing Trump said:
Sept 18, 2025 — Trump celebrated the suspension of Kimmel:
“They should have fired him a long time ago … He was fired for lack of talent.” PBS+2Reuters+2
And Reuters reports:
“Trump applauds Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension … said TV broadcasters should lose their licenses over negative coverage of his administration.” Reuters
Sept 23, 2025 — After ABC reinstated Kimmel, Trump posted on Truth Social:
“I can’t believe ABC Fake News gave Jimmy Kimmel his job back … Something happened between then and now … his audience is GONE, and his ‘talent’ was never there.” People.com
He also threatened to “test ABC”:
“Let’s see how we do. Last time I went after them, they gave me $16 Million Dollars. This one sounds even more lucrative. … Let Jimmy Kimmel rot in his bad Ratings.” People.com
Trump also attacked David Letterman in relation to Kimmel’s return:
He called Letterman “highly overrated” and a “loser” after Letterman defended Kimmel. EW.com
Known instances where Trump has called for firing or cancellation of other comedians / hosts
- During the Kimmel suspension period (September 2025), Trump called on NBC to fireJimmy Fallon and Seth Meyers. Cracked.com+1
- A report says: “President Trump Calls on NBC to Cancel Seth Meyers and Jimmy Fallon Amid Jimmy Kimmel Suspension.” Cracked.com
- Another article cites Trump urging networks to punish broadcasters and that he believed critical voices should be canceled. Reuters
- Trump also made broader comments that networks airing content critical of him were “not allowed to do that,” implying he believed some hosts should be silenced or penalized. Newsweek
- Around August 2025, Trump criticized NBC’s renewal of Seth Meyers’ contract, calling Meyers “talentless” with “no ratings, talent or intelligence.” That’s a harsh public critique, though not an explicit “fire him now” demand.
Ted Cruz
- Cruz sharply criticized FCC Chair Brendan Carr for his role in pressuring ABC and broadcasters to drop Kimmel, calling Carr’s threats “right out of Goodfellas” and likening them to mafia intimidation. He said the government should not be in the business of banning media it doesn’t like. TIME+3Reuters+3CBS News+3
- He admitted he disliked what Kimmel said (“I hate what Jimmy Kimmel said. I am thrilled that he was fired”) but warned that setting a precedent for government interference in media would be dangerous for conservatives in future administrations. Reuters+3TIME+3CBS News+3
- Cruz also said that though he was glad the show was pulled (given Kimmel’s remarks), he opposed using governmental regulatory power to enforce that outcome. CBS News+2TIME+2
- Mitch McConneell also spoke out against the firing of Jimmy Kimmell
- During a speech to the Rotary Club of Louisville, Senator Mitch McConnell said:
- “We need to be careful not to have the government in charge of our speech … Period. We’re gonna hear some speeches we don’t like … But a worse problem would be having the government trying to decide who gets to speak and who doesn’t.” https://www.wave3.com
- — In response to the controversy over Kimmel’s suspension, McConnell also backed Senator Ted Cruz, saying on X:
- “As a First Amendment guy, myself, I think [Ted Cruz] probably got it right.” Straight Arrow News
- So McConnell opposed government involvement in deciding who gets to be fired (or silenced) and defended free speech in that context.
Jimmy Kimmel was brought back. Obviously, it was not the ratings
If so, Trumps targeting his presumed enemies is a violation of article 6
Who Has the Right to Declare War?
- The Constitution gives Congress the sole power to declare war.
- The President, as Commander in Chief, can direct the military once war is declared, but cannot formally declare war alone.
Trump Dropped a bomb on Iran without going to Congress is a violation of his right under the Constitution
Congress allowing him to drop a bomb on Iran and country that and not holding him accountable is an abdication of their responsibility.
Trump implemented tariffs without going to Congress This is a violation ofArtiocle1 Section 8
Trump attacked ships off Venezuela. He has threatened to continue attacking people he alleges are drug cartels. He has never given us any evidence that they were in fact members of a drug cartel. This is a violation of the US Constitution. US war powers resolution of 1973 and international law.
1. Violation of the U.S. Constitution
- Only Congress can declare war.
- Article I, Section 8, Clause 11: Congress has the power “To declare War…”
- Article II, Section 2: The President is Commander in Chief — he can direct the military, but not initiate war on his own.
- If Trump ordered an attack on Venezuelan ships without Congressional approval, he bypassed Congress’s authority.
- This makes the action unconstitutional — an abuse of executive power.
2. Violation of U.S. Statutory Law
- The War Powers Resolution of 1973 limits presidential military action without Congress:
- President must notify Congress within 48 hours of using armed forces.
- Forces cannot remain in combat longer than 60 days without Congressional authorization.
- An unapproved attack on Venezuelan ships would breach this law.
3. Violation of International Law
- Under the United Nations Charter (1945):
- Member states cannot use force against another sovereign state except:
- In self-defense (Article 51), or
- With U.N. Security Council approval.
- Member states cannot use force against another sovereign state except:
- Unless Venezuelan ships were directly attacking U.S. forces, Trump’s strike would count as an act of aggression — illegal under international law.
4. Practical Consequences
- Risk of war: Such unilateral action could escalate into armed conflict with Venezuela — without American citizens’ consent through Congress.
- Destabilization: It undermines U.S. credibility, both domestically and abroad, by ignoring constitutional checks and global law.
- Abuse of power: Sets a dangerous precedent of one person unilaterally deciding to attack another country.
✅ Summary:
Trump’s attack on Venezuelan ships is wrong because it:
- Violates the Constitution (only Congress can declare war).
- Violates the War Powers Resolution.
- Violates international law (UN Charter).
Article I, Section 8 — Powers of Congress
- “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States…”
- It also says: “…all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.”
👉 “Duties” and “Imposts” are the 18th-century words for what we call tariffs (taxes on imports).
Why It Belongs to Congress
- Tariffs are a form of taxation.
- The Constitution places all taxing and spending power in Congress, not the President.
- This was deliberate: the Founders wanted the people’s elected representatives (House and Senate) to control revenue, not a single executive.
What About the President?
- Under Article II, the President can negotiate treaties (like trade agreements), but they require Senate approval.
- In modern practice, Congress has passed laws (like the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 or the Trade Act of 1974) that delegate some tariff-setting authority to the President in specific circumstances (e.g., national security, unfair trade practices).
- But those powers exist only because Congress allowed it by statute — they can also take them back.
✅ In short:
- Constitutional authority over tariffs = Congress (Article I, Section 8).
- Congress has abdicated their responsibility and authority under the constitution.
- Presidential tariff powers = delegated by Congress through modern trade laws, not in the Constitution.
Trump and the Republican party are engaging in Election interference
Constitutional Provisions on Elections
Article I, Section 4 – Elections Clause
- States run federal elections (time, place, manner), but Congress can make or alter those rules.
- If someone manipulates how elections are conducted (ballot access, vote counting), that’s a violation of this constitutional framework.
Article II, Section 1 – Presidential Elections
- Establishes the Electoral College.
- Interfering with electors or the process of certifying votes is unconstitutional.
12th Amendment
- Details how presidential elections and electoral votes must be counted.
- Disrupting this process = interference.
14th Amendment, Section 2 & 3
- Protects the right to vote from being abridged.
- Bars insurrectionists or those who aided enemies from holding office.
- Interference in elections (like intimidation or suppression) undermines this protection.
15th, 19th, 24th, and 26th Amendments
- Prohibit discrimination in voting based on race, sex, failure to pay poll tax, or age (18+).
- Any interference targeting these groups violates constitutional voting rights.
2. Election Interference as a Constitutional Violation
- Suppressing votes (e.g., intimidation at polls) = violates the 14th and 15th Amendments.
- Manipulating vote counting or pressuring officials to “find votes” = violates Article I, Article II, and the 12th Amendment.
- Foreign interference (like soliciting help from another country) = can qualify as giving “aid and comfort” to enemies → raising Article III (treason) concerns.
3. Federal Laws Backing Up the Constitution
While the Constitution sets the framework, Congress created laws to criminalize election interference:
- 52 U.S. Code § 10307 – bans voter intimidation, coercion, or threats.
- 18 U.S. Code § 371 – conspiracy to defraud the U.S. (often used in election interference cases).
- Voting Rights Act of 1965 – enforces protections in the 14th and 15th Amendments.
✅ In Summary
- The Constitution gives Congress and the states shared power to regulate elections.
- Amendments (14th, 15th, 19th, 24th, 26th) guarantee equal voting rights.
- Interference with elections — whether through suppression, intimidation, manipulation, or foreign involvement — is unconstitutional because it undermines these protections.
Trump and his family have gemerated$15 billion dollars in agreement while in office. This is a violation of the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments clause.
1. Emoluments Clauses
The Constitution has two separate “Emoluments Clauses” designed to prevent presidents and officials from profiting from office.
Foreign Emoluments Clause
📜 Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:
“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”
👉 Meaning: A president cannot accept money, gifts, payments, or benefits from foreign governments unless Congress approves.
So, if Trump signed foreign real estate deals, licensing agreements, or got financing from foreign state-owned companies while in office — that’s unconstitutional unless Congress explicitly consented (it did not).
Domestic Emoluments Clause
📜 Article II, Section 1, Clause 7:
“The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation… and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.”
👉 Meaning: The president cannot receive extra payments or benefits from federal or state governments beyond his official salary.
So, if Trump benefited from state contracts, federal leases (like the D.C. Trump Hotel), or tax breaks while in office — that violates this clause.
2. Corruption & Abuse of Power
- The Founders put these clauses in the Constitution to prevent conflicts of interest.
- If Trump made $15 billion in deals while president, that means his public office was mixed with private profit.
- This undermines the president’s duty to act for the nation’s interest, not his personal enrichment.
✅ In Summary
Trump’s $15 billion in agreements while in office likely violates:
- Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8).
- Domestic Emoluments Clause (Article II, Section 1, Clause 7).
- The broader constitutional principle that officials must serve the public, not themselves.
- Endangers U.S. democracy and global stability.
Trump has had ice agents pickup people without know if they are illegal immigrants and or have committed a crime. Heh as sent them to detention centers and or out of the country.
This is a violation of Due Process and the 5th amendment
1. Due Process Clauses
- 5th Amendment (Bill of Rights):
“No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”- Applies to the federal government.
- 14th Amendment (1868):
“…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”- Applies to the states.
⚖️ Key Point: Notice it says “no person”, not “no citizen.” Courts have consistently held that non-citizens, including undocumented immigrants, are entitled to basic due process protections while in the U.S.
2. What Due Process Means
Due process = fair legal procedures.
- Right to a hearing before an impartial judge.
- Right to know the charges or reasons for detention.
- Right to present evidence and have legal representation.
If Trump detains or removes people without hearings or legal process, that’s a clear constitutional violation.
Trump has an enemies list and has directly ordered them to go after people who he perceives treat him unfairly. This is a violation of the Separation of Powers clause the Bill of Rights and the Fifth and Fourteeenth Amendment to the Constitution
1. Separation of Powers
- Article II: The President executes the laws.
- Article III: The Judicial Branch is independent — it decides cases, not at the President’s command.
- Article I: Congress makes the laws.
👉 By ordering judges or prosecutors to target enemies, Trump is collapsing the separation of powers, trying to use the courts as a political weapon. That is unconstitutional abuse of power.
2. Bill of Rights Protections
First Amendment
- Protects free speech, press, assembly, and petition.
- If Trump targets critics, journalists, or political opponents, that is retaliation for exercising First Amendment rights.
Fifth Amendment
- Guarantees due process of law.
- Selectively targeting individuals because they are “enemies” denies them fair and impartial legal treatment.
Fourteenth Amendment
- Equal Protection Clause: government cannot selectively enforce the law against some people for political reasons.
3. Historical Context
- Nixon’s “enemies list” was widely condemned — but Nixon never openly ordered prosecutions.
- Using the machinery of government against political rivals is a hallmark of authoritarianism, not constitutional democracy.
✅ In Summary:
Trump’s use of an “enemies list” and ordering lawsuits against them violates:
- Article III (independence of the judiciary).
- First Amendment (retaliation against free speech/political opposition).
- Fifth Amendment (denial of due process).
- Fourteenth Amendment (unequal, politically motivated enforcement).
- Other examples of Trumps abuse of Power include:
- He told Pam Bondi, the attorney General. to go after James Comey. He even fired the attorney he hired to review this case after he said there was no case to pursue. He then placed his personal lawyer in and she filed the case. This is an egregious abuse of power
- He is also going after:
- Letitia James for filing lawsuit against him and winning
- Adam Schiff for filing impeachment proceedings
- Hilary Clintron
- Joe Biden
- Kamala Harris
- Liz Cheney
- Anthony Blinken
- Adam Kinzinger
- Mark Zaid
- John Bolton
- General Milley
- John Brennan
- Jack Smith
He has also gone after law firms and other institutions
Trump’s “enemy list” also extends beyond individuals to organizations, law firms, and legal professionals that have represented his critics or taken actions he opposes:
- Perkins Coie LLP
Targeted via executive order: employees’ security clearances suspended, contract reviews, limits on government dealings. ABC News+3Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3 - Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
Initially targeted by executive order, though later the order was rescinded after the firm made concessions. Wikipedia+1 - Covington & Burling, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale, Susman Godfrey, Elias Law Group, others
These firms have been subject to policies and executive actions restricting their access, contracts, or security clearances because of their litigation or representation of clients adverse to Trump or his interests. Wikipedia+3Wikipedia+3Congressman Steve Cohen+3 - Lawyers individually named
Among those named in memoranda and security-clearance revocations: Alvin Bragg, Norman Eisen, Lisa Monaco, Andrew Weissmann, Mark Zaid, Peter Koski, etc. Wikipedia+1 - Media organizations / journalistic critics — He often calls out networks, publications, and individual journalists for perceived bias.
- Academia / elite universities — The Trump administration has threatened or initiated executive actions against institutions like Harvard, Columbia, and Penn, accusing them of ideologically opposing him. Congressman Steve Cohen
- Political opponents and critics broadly — Many Democrats, independent commentators, and anti-Trump voices are regularly criticized in his speeches and social media.
- Donald Trump also denies maintaining a formal “enemies list”, though many observers argue that his pattern of revocations, investigations, executive actions, and public threats amount to one. New York Post+2AP News+2
Trump’s Deployment of Troops into U.S. Cities: A Constitutional Violation
One of the bedrock principles of the American Republic is the separation of federal and state authority. The Constitution was carefully designed to prevent any president from wielding unchecked power over the people. When a president sends federal troops into American cities without state consent, it strikes at the heart of that balance — violating both the
What Trump Said
- “Law and Order President”
Trump repeatedly said he was the “President of law and order” and had to restore peace in “Democrat-run cities” that, in his view, failed to control protests and unrest.- Example: July 2020, he announced “Operation Legend”, deploying federal agents to cities like Chicago, Albuquerque, and Kansas City, claiming it was necessary to stop violent crime.
- In Portland, he said troops were needed to protect federal buildings and statues, but the deployment extended to streets and protests far beyond federal property.
- Accusations Against Local Leaders
Trump argued that Democratic mayors and governors were “weak” and had “lost control” of their cities. He claimed he had the authority to step in where local officials supposedly failed.- Example: He said Portland was being “overrun by anarchists” and that “if the local leaders don’t do their job, the federal government will.”
- Broad Reading of the Insurrection Act
Trump hinted that he could invoke the Insurrection Act, even without state consent, to use the military domestically. He claimed the president has “unlimited power” to restore order when states fail.
This is a clear violation of the Constitution
1. The 10th Amendment: Reserved Powers to the States
The 10th Amendment makes clear that powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states and the people. Local policing and public order fall under state jurisdiction. By inserting federal troops into local matters without consent, the president strips states of their sovereignty and undermines federalism — a direct violation of the constitutional design.
2. Article IV, Section 4 (The Guarantee Clause)
Article IV guarantees each state protection against invasion and, crucially, “on application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic Violence.”
That language means the president cannot simply decide to send troops into a state on his own. The request must come from the governor or the state legislature. When federal troops arrive uninvited, it violates this constitutional safeguard.
3. First Amendment Rights
Deploying troops against protesters has direct consequences for civil liberties. The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech, peaceful assembly, and petitioning the government. Using soldiers to silence dissent or intimidate citizens undermines these protections, transforming the military into a tool of political suppression.
4. Fourth Amendment Protections
The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable searches and seizures. Military forces acting as police can easily trample this right, detaining civilians without warrants, conducting searches without probable cause, or using force disproportionate to the situation. Once the military assumes domestic policing roles, constitutional boundaries blur dangerously.
5. Separation of Powers
The Constitution divides authority between Congress and the president to prevent tyranny. Congress regulates the military and funds its operations. When the president unilaterally deploys troops as a domestic police force, he bypasses Congress’s role, threatening the balance of powers that keeps our Republic intact.
6. The Posse Comitatus Act (1878)
Although not part of the Constitution itself, the Posse Comitatus Act enforces constitutional principles by prohibiting the use of the Army and Air Force for domestic law enforcement, except where authorized by Congress or the Constitution. It embodies the idea that the military should never become a standing domestic police force. Deployments outside of this framework are not only unconstitutional but also unlawful.
✅ Historical Examples: Legitimate vs. Illegitimate Uses
Legitimate Deployments
- Eisenhower in Little Rock (1957):
President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Arkansas, but only after Governor Orval Faubus defied a federal court order to desegregate schools. Eisenhower acted not against state authority, but to enforce the Constitution and federal law when the state openly defied it. - George H.W. Bush in Los Angeles (1992):
After the Rodney King verdict sparked riots, California’s governor formally requested federal assistance. Only then did President Bush invoke the Insurrection Act, in direct cooperation with state authorities — making it constitutional. - Grant during Reconstruction (1870s):
Troops were used to combat Ku Klux Klan violence under explicit congressional authorization, again to protect constitutional rights.
Illegitimate Deployments
- Trump’s Actions (2020):
Federal troops were deployed in Portland and Washington, D.C., without state or local consent. They were used against protesters, many of whom were exercising First Amendment rights. Unlike Eisenhower or Bush, Trump acted not to enforce federal law or at state request, but to impose federal force against Americans for political theater.
Republican Voices Against Trump’s Troop Deployments
Even within Trump’s own party, respected Republican leaders and national security figures rejected his attempts to send federal troops into American cities. Their words underscore how dangerous and unconstitutional this overreach was.
Mark Esper
Republican, Former Secretary of Defense (Trump Administration)
“The option to use active-duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort … We are not in one of those situations now. I do not support invoking the Insurrection Act.”
📌 Why it matters: Esper was Trump’s own Defense Secretary. His public break shows that even inside Trump’s Cabinet, there was alarm at the unconstitutional nature of the plan.
Tom Ridge
Republican, Former Pennsylvania Governor; First U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security (Bush Administration)
“It would be a cold day in hell before I would consent to an uninvited, unilateral intervention into one of my cities. DHS was not established to be the president’s personal militia.”
📌 Why it matters: Ridge helped create DHS. His warning that Trump was turning it into a “personal militia” underlines how far Trump strayed from the department’s original mission.
Thom Tillis
Republican U.S. Senator (North Carolina)
“Federal overreach is not the answer for Charlotte or any other city. Public safety must remain under the control of state and local authorities.”
📌 Why it matters: A sitting Republican senator publicly rejected Trump’s threat of federal troop deployments, affirming that policing is a state responsibility.
Rand Paul
Republican U.S. Senator (Kentucky)
“The military should not be used for domestic enforcement. That would be illegal and set a dangerous precedent.”
📌 Why it matters: Paul’s libertarian streak highlights a broader conservative principle: using the U.S. military against Americans is a direct violation of constitutional limits.
Megyn Kelly
Conservative Media Commentator
“Sorry, but we can’t have it.” (on Trump’s suggestion of sending troops into Chicago)
📌 Why it matters: Even conservative media voices saw Trump’s proposal as unconstitutional and a step toward authoritarianism.
⚖️ The Takeaway
These Republican voices cut through the partisan fog: sending federal troops into cities without state consent violates the Constitution, undermines federalism, and endangers civil liberties. Opposition came not only from Democrats — but from Trump’s own appointees, Republican governors, senators, and conservative commentators.
Conclusion
Trump’s decision to send federal troops into American cities — without state request or congressional authorization — is more than a political choice. It is a direct violation of the 10th Amendment, Article IV, Section 4, and core rights under the Bill of Rights. It undermines state sovereignty, erodes civil liberties, and breaches the separation of powers.
When Eisenhower or Bush acted, they did so within the bounds of law — either to enforce federal court orders or at the explicit request of state governments. Trump, by contrast, used federal troops as an unauthorized domestic police force, weaponizing the military against citizens he swore to protect.
This is not law and order — it is the road to authoritarianism.
It is also the wrong answer. He is spending several hundred million dollars every time he sends troops into a city to supposed reduce crime. The Better answer would be to pass Gun Control with background checks, psychological testing , testing for a license every 5 years and no open carry.
In Europe where they do not allow for open carry the rates are significantly less
A Rough Comparative Summary
| Metric | U.S. | European Union average / many European countries |
| Firearm homicide rate | ~4.11 per 100,000 (2019) WRAL.com+1 | ~0.19 per 100,000 (EU average) WRAL.com+2VPM+2 |
| Ratio | — | U.S. ~22× higher in firearm homicides than EU average WRAL.com+2VPM+2 |
| Europe (continental many) firearm homicide | ~0.3 per 100,000 in many countries Taylor & Francis Online | — |
| Overall homicide rates | Much higher in many U.S. cities / states | Europe region ~1.13 per 100,000 (overall) |
The Two-Party system will not fix these problems. Senators and Congressmen have no desire to fix this. It is how they make money.
If you agree please go to 🌐 TheCentralForwardParty.com
We have sensible solutions for America’s Problems
President Trump has violated all these protections Section 3 of Article 2 of the constitution (Powers of the President) says he Must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Section 4 of Article 2 of the Constitution says:
Section 4 – Removal from Office
- The President, Vice President, and other civil officers can be impeached and removed for “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
- It says Must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
In summary President Trump has violated the laws of the Constitution and Bill or Rights
Our legislative Branch has failed to enforce them and abdicated their responsibility and their duty under the Constitution.
President Trump should be impeached by Congress. Even Congress under President Nixon did their duty and forced him to resign. Why won’t this Congress do their duty? What are they afraid of?
Once Trump is impeached, he should be tried under Federal Law for Treason
In addition Trump engaged in an insurrection is his first term
- 8 U.S. Code § 2383 – Rebellion or insurrection
Whoever incites, assists, or engages in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States … shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
- 14th Amendment, Section 3 (Constitution)
No person who has engaged in insurrection or rebellion … shall hold any office, civil or military, under the United States.
This is not a criminal penalty, but a disqualification from office.
- 18 U.S. Code § 2384 – Seditious conspiracy (related but distinct)
If two or more people conspire to overthrow or oppose the U.S. government by force, that is a separate federal crime.
2. Punishment
For 18 U.S.C. § 2383:
- Up to 10 years imprisonment
- Fines (amount discretionary under federal sentencing guidelines)
- Disqualification from holding federal office
For seditious conspiracy (§ 2384):
- Up to 20 years imprisonment
For 14th Amendment Section 3:
- Not prison, but constitutional disqualification from office if determined applicable (by Congress, the courts, or in some states by election officials).
3. Statute of limitations
- Federal insurrection (18 U.S.C. § 2383): falls under the general statute of limitations for federal non-capital offenses: 5 years (18 U.S.C. § 3282).
- Seditious conspiracy (18 U.S.C. § 2384): also generally 5 years, unless tied to a capital crime.
- Disqualification under the 14th Amendment: No statute of limitations. It can be applied whenever evidence shows participation in insurrection.
✅ Summary:
Trump’s alleged involvement in an insurrection would primarily implicate 18 U.S.C. § 2383 (insurrection) and possibly § 2384 (seditious conspiracy). The punishment could include up to 10–20 years in prison, fines, and—critically—disqualification from holding office again. The statute of limitations for the criminal charges is about 5 years, but constitutional disqualification under the 14th Amendment has no time lim
Federal Law on Treason
Under 18 U.S. Code § 2381:
- A person guilty of treason “shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.”
