Trump on Upholding Constitution: 'I don't know'

Monday, May 05, 2025

The Constitution's Fifth Amendment says "no person" shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"; it does not say that person must be a U.S. citizen, and the Supreme Court has long recognized that noncitizens have certain basic rights.

Posted by Reinheitsgebot at 12:48 PM | 112 COMMENTS | permalink

Mari's quote was perfect. The administration is clearly incompetent and corrupt but the real responsibility lies with the republicans in Congress. They have neglected their duty and not upheld their oath. They had the power to stop all of this nonsense. [image or embed]
— mhockman.bsky.social (@mhockman.bsky.social) May 5, 2025 at 12:47 AM

Comments

Trump is unsure that he has to uphold the Constitution and his Oath but when he's finished thinking about it he won't.

#1 | Posted by Zed at 2025-05-04 11:27 AM

There used to scads of constitutional law experts here at the Drudge.

Where have they all gone???

#2 | Posted by Angrydad at 2025-05-04 12:47 PM

The Republican Party gave up on the constitution on January 20th, 2017.

#3 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-04 12:54 PM

...don't you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?" Welker asked. "I don't know," Trump replied.

How are MAGAts not totally embarrassed by this man?

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-04 08:19 PM

How are MAGAts not totally embarrassed by this man?

#4 | Posted by TFDNihilist

They will be.

Trump will go down as one of the most reviled men in American history. Sycophants will deny they ever supported him/

#5 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2025-05-05 02:21 AM

They have already completely ignored the 4th amendment why would they care about the 5th?

#6 | Posted by qcp at 2025-05-05 09:40 AM

MAGATS won't touch this post. They know they voted for someone who attempted to get overthrow the Constitution. They don't care. They'd rather live under a monarch than in a democracy.

#7 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-05-05 10:08 AM

Winston Zeddemore: Ray, when someone asks you if [need to uphold the Constitution], you say "YES"!

#8 | Posted by Sycophant at 2025-05-05 10:19 AM

MAGA does not support the Constitution, including those who post here. Like SCOTT.

#9 | Posted by Zed at 2025-05-05 10:23 AM

Trump believes he IS the Constitution. That his Whims are Law.

In a Simpler and more straightforward time he would Die for this Outrage....

Today we just change the Channel.

Winning?

#10 | Posted by Effeteposer at 2025-05-05 10:26 AM

Looky here.

It's a perfect day to realize that the politics you're used to are gone and never coming back. You can think about what you want the future to look like and try to build toward that. When you keep trying to wishcast the country back to 1998 to try to avoid it you become part of the problem. Start thinking about AT, after Trump.

#11 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2025-05-05 11:37 AM

Remember the "Know Nothing Party"??

Trumpy now leads the "I don't know Nuttin about Nuttin Party".

Gratz on your FAFO America.

#12 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-05 11:51 AM

Can you imagine the amount of heads exploding at faux nooz if Biden had done 1/1000th of the illegal ---- dotardo is doing right now and then having the audacity to answer a question about upholding the Constitution (when it is right inside his oath of office) with "I don't know"?

What an utter joke the GCCCP has become.

They were set to impeach Biden over being repaid for truck loan payments he made for Hunter and this corrupt piece of filth is selling meme coins and deregulating crypto AFTER one of the largest crypto dealers buys billions of his meme coins. www.rollingstone.com

What a ------- joke the GCCCP has become.

Banana republicans.

#13 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-05-05 12:03 PM

#7 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce

Looks like you are correct.

#14 | Posted by Angrydad at 2025-05-05 12:04 PM

They'd rather live under a monarch than in a democracy.

By the time their dumbasses figured it out it would be way too late.

For the life of me, I can never understand how J6 was not an instant dealbreaker for their love of that orange ---------.

That is the saddest part of the past four years.

#15 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-05-05 12:47 PM

Republicans want a monarchy as long as they're in control.

#16 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-05 12:57 PM

@#1 ... Trump is unsure that he has to uphold the Constitution and his Oath ...

Why is he unsure about it?

The President of the United States should not have one bit of doubt about this.

#17 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-05 01:16 PM

MAGATS won't touch this post. They know they voted for someone who attempted to get overthrow the Constitution. They don't care. They'd rather live under a monarch than in a democracy.

#7 | Posted by johnny_hotsauce at 2025-05-05 10:08 AM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

I will, and unlike most of you dolts I actually watched the interview. What Trump was referring to is the due process rule is very sketchy in regards to illegals. Sure if you come over here legally by going through the legal process ( that btw is the due process that should have happened and Biden ignored it) then you should be offered due process before getting kicked out. And btw Garcia had two hearings here, he was denied asylum both times. And btw way the constitution states that someone who comes here illegally and is apprehended within 2 years and within 100 miles of the border does not deserve due process.
The issue with the whole mess and what Trump was referring to is this is not a cut and dry issue, like everything it will be battled in the courts and eventually be ruled on by the SCOTUS. The writers of the constitution did not imagine that millions of illegals would be allowed to enter this country illegally in such a short period of time and would be enabled by a President who allowed the law to be broken so flagrantly.
So go ahead and scream about Trump saying he doesn't know if the constitution should be followed on this while you had no issues with Biden not following it.

#18 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 01:21 PM

@#18 ... What Trump was referring to is the due process rule is very sketchy in regards to illegals ...

The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that is does.

#19 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-05 01:27 PM

@#19 ... The Supreme Court ruled unanimously (9-0) that [it] does. ...

Don't sound "sketchy" to me.

#20 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-05 01:30 PM

The writers of the constitution did not imagine that millions of illegals...
#18 | Posted by fishpaw

What are you babbling about? In 1789 there wasn't even the concept of an illegal immigrant. You just got off the boat and that was it.

And I may be wrong, but where in the Constitution is this 2 year, 100 mile rule? Educate me.

#21 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 01:53 PM

And I may be wrong, but where in the Constitution is this 2 year, 100 mile rule? Educate me.

Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 01:53 PM | Reply

It doesn't.

#22 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-05 01:56 PM

#19 "to facilitate his return". Does that mean go over to El Salvador and demand that one of their citizens be returned to the US?

#23 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:04 PM

#22 "Expedited Removal:
This process, created in 1996, allows for the rapid removal of certain non-citizens, particularly those who arrive at a port of entry or enter the country without proper documentation, and have been in the U.S. for less than two years."

#24 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:09 PM

What are you babbling about? In 1789 there wasn't even the concept of an illegal immigrant. You just got off the boat and that was it.

#21 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 01:53 PM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

Correct, so using the constitution to rule on deportation of millions who came here and for the most part were let it here , which is against the law, is difficult and will be challenged in courts.
If Biden had simply followed the law and not allowed the floods of illegals he allowed here we wouldn't be having this conversation.

#25 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:13 PM

In less than 24 hours some administration spokesmodel will come out and declare that 'The president was only joking! Cannot you insane liberals take a joke?' or something to that effect. When caught in a situation where something he says is clearly, wildly wrong, it's always the 'joke defense'. Sadly, Trump is serious when he sends up these trial balloons. It's only when the outrage and the pushback becomes too much is the idea withdrawn.. Americans must keep pushing back...

#26 | Posted by catdog at 2025-05-05 02:18 PM

#22 Some more info for you to look at. www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org

#27 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:21 PM

www.youtube.com

Here's Scalia and Ginsburg speaking of the matter.

#28 | Posted by western_slope at 2025-05-05 02:25 PM

#26. No she won't. The last spokesperson was known for "I can't comment on that". She said it at the few press conferences that they had. How many time did Biden, or should I say his handlers allow him to even talk publicly?

#29 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:26 PM

#28 That was 11 years ago and we didn't have an immigration emergency like we have now. Plus there is a Ginsburg interview where she said RvWade should be overturned. LOL

#30 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:31 PM

The constitution became a worthless piece of paper when an insurrectionist was allowed to run for president, which the constitution specifically bans.

#31 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-05 02:41 PM

www.youtube.com

Here's Scalia and Ginsburg speaking of the matter.

Posted by western_slope at 2025-05-05 02:25 PM | Reply

Thank You for posting this.

#32 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-05 02:42 PM

Correct...
#25 | Posted by fishpaw

So there's nothing in the Constitution about illegal immigration, but there is something about due process.
Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

#33 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 02:51 PM

The last Justice Ginsburg cited the important term about who is protected in the US by the Constitution: "Persons."

#34 | Posted by C0RI0LANUS at 2025-05-05 02:55 PM

"If Biden had simply followed the law and not allowed the floods of illegals he allowed here."

If Trump had simply built The Wall and not allowed the floods of illegals he allowed here.

By your reasoning, he failed you even harder than Biden. And you rewarded him for it.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 02:55 PM

we didn't have an immigration emergency like we have now.

BS. Reagan gave amnesty back in 86. This has been an issue for a long time.

#36 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-05 02:58 PM

I don't feel like sacrificing my 5th amendment rights because you're scared, fishpaw.

#37 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-05 03:04 PM

"we didn't have an immigration emergency like we have now."

What's the emergency?
Immigration is waaaay down.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 03:08 PM

If one deprives the Constitutional protections for the Undocumented immigrants. What's to say that they won't come after your Constitutional rights next??

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-05 03:09 PM

Correct...
#25 | Posted by fishpaw
So there's nothing in the Constitution about illegal immigration, but there is something about due process.
Things that make you go "hmmmmm".

#33 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 02:51 PM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

Yup, the constitution was not referring to illegal immigrants when it talked about due process which is why Trump said he might not be able to follow the constitution on illegal immigration. The founders never imagined that a President would break the law by allowing millions of illegal immigrants to illegally flood this country.

#40 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 03:09 PM

I don't feel like sacrificing my 5th amendment rights because you're scared, fishpaw.

#37 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-05 03:04 PM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

I'm not scared, I'm here legally, what are you scared about?

#41 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 03:11 PM

"The founders never imagined that a President would break the law by allowing millions of illegal immigrants to illegally flood this country."

That's why the Founders created the Amendment process!
So, why don't Republicans engage that process?

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 03:12 PM

I'm here legally,
#41 | Posted by fishpaw

You'll never be able to prove that without Due Process!

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 03:13 PM

So, does this mean Mr. Trump committed perjury when he took the oath of office for President?

*sigh* tack on another felony.

#44 | Posted by TrueBlue at 2025-05-05 03:13 PM

If one deprives the Constitutional protections for the Undocumented immigrants. What's to say that they won't come after your Constitutional rights next??

#39 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-05 03:09 PM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

Trump was deprived of his due process rights under the constitution in his NY trial but you didn't have a issue with that.

#45 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 03:14 PM

I'm here legally,
#41 | Posted by fishpaw
You'll never be able to prove that without Due Process!

#43 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 03:13 PM | Reply | Flag:

All I do is show my passport. Easy if you do it the right way.

#46 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 03:16 PM

Trump was deprived of
#45 | POSTED BY FISHPAWN

Of absolutely nothing.

You stupid ------- ------.

#47 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-05 03:17 PM

This country bent over backwards to accommodate his every ------- whim.

I ------- hate idiots like you.

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-05 03:17 PM

Posted by fishpud

This clown's willful ignorance is surprisingly robust.

Guess he's tired of getting upstaged by shrimpdork, snotty-s and waffle-boy...

#49 | Posted by Angrydad at 2025-05-05 03:21 PM

@#45 ... Trump was deprived of his due process rights under the constitution in his NY trial ...

Please be specific, with evidence.

thx.

#50 | Posted by LampLighter at 2025-05-05 03:31 PM

...the constitution was not referring to illegal immigrants...
#40 | Posted by fishpaw

Exactly, it says "No person..." pretty unambiguous.

All I do is show my passport.
#46 | Posted by fishpaw

And when exactly do you do that? During due process.

#51 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 03:40 PM

FISHPAW:

The claim that "Trump was deprived of his due process rights under the constitution in his NY trial" is not fully accurate based on available information.

Due Process and Jury Instructions:
- In the New York trial, Judge Juan M. Merchan instructed the jury that they must reach a unanimous verdict on Trump's guilt regarding the key elements of falsifying business records and intent to conceal a crime. The jury was allowed some flexibility only in deciding which specific unlawful means Trump used, but unanimity was required on the core charges. This means the jury had to agree unanimously that Trump committed the crime, preserving his Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial and due process[3].
- Some claims circulating on social media suggested the jury did not need to be unanimous, but these have been debunked as misrepresentations of the judge's instructions[3].
- A legal analysis noted that there were concerns about the jury instructions potentially being legally defective, which could implicate Sixth Amendment rights, but the official court documents do not conclude that Trump was deprived of due process outright; rather, motions and appeals are part of the ongoing legal process[2][4].

While there are legal arguments and motions challenging aspects of the trial procedure, the official judge's instructions required a unanimous verdict on the essential elements of the charges, meaning Trump's constitutional right to due process was upheld in that regard. Assertions that he was deprived of due process rights in the New York trial are therefore inaccurate or at least not supported by the court's instructions and rulings as of now[3][4].

Citations:
[1] www.nbcnews.com
[2] media.aflegal.org
[3] apnews.com
[4] www.nycourts.gov
[5] www.nytimes.com
[6] www.supremecourt.gov
[7] www.aclu.org
[8] thehill.com
[9] www.rollingstone.com
[10] www.npr.org

#52 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-05-05 03:46 PM

what are you scared about?

That morons like you will trade my liberty for the illusion of your safety.

#53 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-05 03:53 PM

The founders never imagined that a President would break the law by allowing millions of illegal immigrants to illegally flood this country.

#40 | Posted by fishpaw

The founders never imagined a party as corrupt as one that didn't convict a leader who attempted a coup.

But they did imagine a leader so evil that he would simply ACCUSE people of crimes and punish them without due process, and they gave us safeguards against that.

#54 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-05 04:18 PM

...the constitution was not referring to illegal immigrants...

Because The Constitution is referring to people.
Are illegal immigrants people, or are they subhuman?
You're not man enough to say what you really believe.

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 04:19 PM

All I do is show my passport. Easy if you do it the right way.
#46 | Posted by fishpaw

Passports can be forged. So no, that won't work for you.

#56 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 04:23 PM

All I do is show my passport. Easy if you do it the right way.
#46 | Posted by fishpaw

I find it hard to believe you carry your passport when you are out and about, which is how ICE has been black-bagging people and detaining them without judicial review.

You really walk around with your passport on you?

Great. What about the millions of citizens who don't even have a passport? ---- those people, is your answer. Because you're a fascist.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 04:25 PM

"---- those people, is your answer. Because you're a fascist."

Exactly.

#58 | Posted by Angrydad at 2025-05-05 04:42 PM

What do Americans get from giving illegals due process? Forget The Constitutional merit because when The Constitution was written ------- were slaves and Indians had zero rights let alone muh due process.

#59 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-05 06:05 PM

---- off.

#60 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-05 06:07 PM

^ ...with your truths an sheit.

#61 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-05 06:13 PM

What do Americans get from giving illegals due process? Forget The Constitutional merit because when The Constitution was written ni--ers were slaves and Indians had zero rights let alone muh due process.
#59 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-05 06:05 PM

Women and children were both.

So glad the Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times since.

#62 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-05 06:16 PM

What do Americans get from giving illegals due process?
#59 | Posted by chiligordo

For me, the knowledge that I am not punishing an innocent person is good for my soul.
And why do MAGAts constantly ignore the question of how do you know they are illegal without due process?

#63 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 06:48 PM

#19 "to facilitate his return". Does that mean go over to El Salvador and demand that one of their citizens be returned to the US?
#23 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:| Funny: 1

So, first remit "due process" so they will not facilitate any return.

Then arrest judges who object?

#64 | Posted by redlightrobot at 2025-05-05 06:59 PM

how do you know they are illegal
#63

No one is challenging that. Call it 'undocumented' if that makes you feel better. But know, legal immigrants have documents showing that they entered the country legally.

#65 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-05 07:19 PM

love the deflection going on here by Chiligordo, Fishpaw and others:

Trump does not respect "due process." He said on camera he would not commit to following the rule of law.
How is that not clear?

#66 | Posted by e1g1 at 2025-05-05 07:23 PM

But know, legal immigrants have documents showing that they entered the country legally.

#65 | Posted by chiligordo

My friend doesn't. She was a korean adoptee who is estranged from her adoptive parents and doesn't have any of her official paperwork. Is she an illegal?

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-05 07:27 PM

#52. Ok, let's see what you say after the appeals decision comes in.

#68 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-05 07:53 PM

...legal immigrants have documents showing that they entered the country legally.
#65 | Posted by chiligordo

Right, and there is a way for them to show those documents, it's called due process.

#69 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 08:00 PM

My friend doesn't. She was a korean adoptee who is estranged from her adoptive parents and doesn't have any of her official paperwork. Is she an illegal?

#67 | Posted by SpeakSoftly

Of course not, provided she was legitimately adopted and all. Her documents exist even if she doesn't have a hardcopy with her.
Are you a moron to think your friend is legally compromised because she betrayed her benefactors? Help her get copies if you want. Do it right away, before she turns on you too.

#70 | Posted by chiligordo at 2025-05-05 08:03 PM

...she doesn't have a hardcopy with her.
#70 | Posted by chiligordo

And how would she produce them without due process?

#71 | Posted by TFDNihilist at 2025-05-05 10:23 PM

let's see what you say after the appeals decision comes in.
#68 | Posted by fishpaw

No way to tell.

#72 | Posted by rstybeach11 at 2025-05-05 11:33 PM

#70 | Posted by chiligordo

Does she deserve to get sent to el salvador if she doesn't have this paperwork on her?

Remember when you were a kid watching movies? Were the "show us your papers" characters usually the good guys or the bad guys? Or did you root for the bad guys as a kid too?

#73 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2025-05-05 11:45 PM

Of course not, provided she was legitimately adopted and all. Her documents exist even if she doesn't have a hardcopy with her.
#70 | Posted by chiligordo

And if she wasn't legitimately adopted?
And what if her documents can't be found?
Should she then be deported, because she is an illegal alien, a victim of American child traffickers?

A simple Yes or No will suffice.

#74 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 10:03 AM

We must review everyone who has been granted citizenship, to make sure Liberal and Communist immigration agents didn't subversively let any subhumans through!

Tell me if I'm wrong, Republicans.

#75 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 10:05 AM

"What do Americans get from giving illegals due process?"

A country based on The Law and not the whims a moron who thinks he is was voted King. And even a good King would know to do better for his people.

And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.'

#76 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-06 10:22 AM

I see Fishpoo doesn't know if due process is a constitutional right.

But then again Fishpoo don't know much about any in the real world.

Personally I blame Call of Dooty.

#77 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-06 10:31 AM

"What do Americans get from giving illegals due process?"
^
I'm guessing this isn't rhetorical, and you really don't know the answer your own question.

"What do Americans get from giving people due process?"
^
Can you answer that question?

#78 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 10:32 AM

You really walk around with your passport on you?
Great. What about the millions of citizens who don't even have a passport? ---- those people, is your answer. Because you're a fascist.

#57 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-05 04:25 PM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)
| Newsworthy 5

Another useful tip would be to not do what your hero Garcia did, speed down the highway without a licence or insurance with a car full of illegals heading from Texas to Maryland. Or if you are here illegally don't beat your wife enough times that she calls the police. Are those tips helpful?

#79 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-06 10:51 AM

#52 chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/media.aflegal.org

#80 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-06 10:57 AM

#19 "to facilitate his return". Does that mean go over to El Salvador and demand that one of their citizens be returned to the US?

#23 | POSTED BY FISHPAW

It means do whatever is necessary dingus.

They had him released from prison to talk to a congressman. So they could release him all the rest of the way easily. If they wanted to.

They figured out how to circumvent the law to take him out of America illegally then they can certainly figure out how to undo what they have done.

#81 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-06 11:02 AM

It means do whatever is necessary dingus.
They had him released from prison to talk to a congressman. So they could release him all the rest of the way easily. If they wanted to.

They figured out how to circumvent the law to take him out of America illegally then they can certainly figure out how to undo what they have done.
#81 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-06 11:02 AM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

Ok, so he already had two immigration hearings. He was DENIED twice. I'll say it again so you can get it into your dense skull, He was DENIED twice. Do you know what that means? It means he needs to go. So what happens if he gets brought back? According to the LAW, which isn't new under Trump btw, he gets shipped out again. Is he above the law? You preach to us that no one is above the law, why should he?

#82 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-06 11:24 AM

Ok, so he already had two immigration hearings. He was DENIED twice. I'll say it again so you can get it into your dense skull, He was DENIED twice. Do you know what that means?

It means you are an idiot.

You want to argue facts? Then bring some receipts

His LAST hearing the judge declared he had the right to not be deported.

In October 2019 he was granted a "withholding of removal" order, court documents show - a status different from asylum, but one which prevented the US government from sending him back to El Salvador on the grounds that he could face harm.

wearecasa.org

Let's see YOUR receipts dingus.

#83 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-06 11:42 AM

"He was DENIED twice. Do you know what that means?"
#82 | Posted by fishpaw

He was granted a "withholding of removal" order.
Do you know what that means?
It means Trump broke the law by deporting him when that order was still in place.
Why can't you accept such a simple fact? The Supreme Court can accept it 9-0 with no dissenting opinion.

What makes you think your dissenting opinion is worth a damn?

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 11:59 AM

Illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights

#85 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-06 12:19 PM

"Illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights"

Be sure to use only one page of the Constitution at a time to wipe your backside.

Being so full of it, you'd be wise to ration.

#86 | Posted by Danforth at 2025-05-06 12:20 PM

"Illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights"

Which Constitution says that?
Because the Untied States Constitution says people have Constitutional Rights.

Or are you saying illegal immigrants aren't people, but rather subhumans.
Or are you too much of a coward to say illegal immigrants are subhumans, like Jews were subhumans in Nazi Germany.

#87 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 12:21 PM

Illegal immigrants have no constitutional rights

#85 | POSTED BY THEBULL

Yes they do.

You are just lucky idiots also have constitutional rights, too, or you would have been black bagged after your very first post here.

#88 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-06 12:33 PM

#84 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:
(Choose)

withholding removal to El Salvador because he was afraid he would be killed by RIVAL gang members. First I thought he wasn't a gang member? Second, MS-13 was eradicated in El Salvador, they all moved here under Biden.

#89 | Posted by fishpaw at 2025-05-06 03:20 PM

"Second, MS-13 was eradicated in El Salvador, they all moved here under Biden."

You claim this guy is MS-13.
So then it's even more likely he would be killed by a rival gang, since there's no MS-13 to protect him in El Salvador.

#90 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-06 03:38 PM

Illegal immigrants still have no constitutional rights.

#91 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-06 08:12 PM

TheBull hasn't a clue what the constitution says.

#92 | Posted by ClownShack at 2025-05-06 08:28 PM

The constitution applies to citizens, not illegal aliens.

Goodbye illegal aliens, don't forget to write...

#93 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-06 10:28 PM

" The constitution applies to citizens, not illegal aliens."

youve been corrected on this from scalia quotes multiple times. youre just lying now.

#94 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-06 10:31 PM

www.pbs.org

read it this time. be teachable.

#95 | Posted by Alexandrite at 2025-05-06 10:34 PM

The Constitution applies to everyone except Diplomats and their family members and heads of state and their family members. They give up their rights due to the nature of their business. Other than those people. They have constitutional rights.

#96 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 10:38 PM

BTW if they didn't have constitutional rights they couldn't be arrested. Just sayin

#97 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2025-05-06 10:43 PM

Goodbye illegal aliens, don't forget to write...

#93 | Posted by THEBULL

dolts like clowndung will hopefully be able to write his "buddies"

in Alcatraz.....

#98 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-05-06 11:16 PM

#96 | Posted by LauraMohr

the have diplomatic immunity and not the right to vote....why should

anyone just be able to walk across a border and vote ? no reason is the answer

kick them all out and continue this virtual NONE on women and children raped

and murdered by illegals..and the only answer to your comment is that you

are okay with the rape and murder

#99 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-05-06 11:20 PM

BREAKING NEWS.

IN INTERVIEW WITH IDIOT WOMAN ON NBC !!

---first question of course was about a third term and trump....being so much smarter than any of those make believe journalists.... made here shift back and forth.

He said he's not going to run for a third term....

so each of you should begin to stockpile your lies and dishonest sources that will come out leading up to midterms....THE TOP LIE about this interview will be...." well he didn't say he wouldn't..
-----except his did.

#100 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-05-06 11:25 PM

BTW if they didn't have constitutional rights they couldn't be arrested. Just sayin

#97 | Posted by LauraMohr

I'll have to check back tomorrow so you can explain this to me.

I guess the 911 bastards should not have been arrested ?

#101 | Posted by shrimptacodan at 2025-05-06 11:27 PM

"kick them all out and continue this virtual NONE on women and children raped
and murdered by illegals"

Only Citizens should be raping and murdering our Women!

#102 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:18 AM

Illegal immigrants still have no constitutional rights.
#91 | Posted by THEBULL

Why don't facts matter to you?
Why do you just lie all day long?
What are you doing?

#103 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:22 AM

Illegal immigrants still have no constitutional rights.
#91 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-06 08:12 PM | Reply

Never in the history of our country has this statement been true; in fact it has been affirmed over and over that unless explicitly stated for certain rights like voting, Constitutional rights apply to everyone in the country.

For example the Constitution explicitly states we have a right to life. Are you suggesting undocumented immigrants (or even legal non-citizens) don't have this right? They can be killed without any recluse? Of course not, this simple example proves your statement to be absurd.

#104 | Posted by bartimus at 2025-05-07 08:53 AM

The poster who keeps insisting the truth of a lie - see #91 - has been repeatedly informed of the facts of the situation. For some reason, he refuses to accept them. Ignorance? Cognitive problems? Sheer jackassery?

I just wish folks who go on about what the Constitution "says" actually (a) read it, and (b) became familiar with the messages sent by some of those cases where SCOTUS tells us, as is its won't, what its membership believe that document "says."

#105 | Posted by Doc_Sarvis at 2025-05-07 09:20 AM

Illegal immigrants still have no constitutional rights.
#91 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-06 08:12 PM | Reply

The stupidity of this post proves America needs to teach civics in high school.

#106 | Posted by Nixon at 2025-05-07 09:50 AM

"Illegal immigrants still have no constitutional rights."

If the Constitution doesn't apply to illegals, then they are not bound by the Constitution or by any Federal laws at all.
Which means illegals can't be deported. It also means illegals can't be prevented from voting in Federal elections.
What you're proposing gives illegals more rights than citizens.
You don't care enough to understand how and why.

#107 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 09:56 AM

Trump is so senile he can't remember the Presidential Oath of Office which he took back on Jan. 20!

""I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.". to be President.

If he really doesn't know what that means then he is too stupid

#108 | Posted by danni at 2025-05-07 10:43 AM

Snoofy claims having no rights actually means you have more rights. Talk about misinformed.

Illegals have the right to leave, that's the only rights they have.

Get to Steppin!

GTFO!

THEY'RE GETTING DEPORTED!

BOOTS ON ------- NECKS!

#109 | Posted by THEBULL at 2025-05-07 12:16 PM

#109

Posted by child of immigrants somewhere back when.

#110 | Posted by Corky at 2025-05-07 12:21 PM

BOOTS ON ------- NECKS!

#109 | POSTED BY THEBULL

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

So that's how YOU a want to go?

Careful what you ask for maga boy.

You might just get it.

#111 | Posted by donnerboy at 2025-05-07 12:27 PM

"Snoofy claims having no rights actually means you have more rights. Talk about misinformed."

Let's review:

You claim the Constitution does not apply to illegal immigrants.

As a result, illegal immigrants are not constrained by the Constitution, or by any Federal law whatsoever, since all Federal laws derive their authority from the Constitution.

Eberly (R) has graciously agreed to answer any remaining questions you may have!

#112 | Posted by snoofy at 2025-05-07 12:48 PM

Drudge Retort Headlines

King Charles III Goes to Canada to Underscore Sovereignty after Trump Threats (86 comments)