Judge Nap: "The president and the Constitution – again"

[Chris0nllyn]

In nearly three years in office, President Donald Trump has spent federal dollars not authorized by Congress; separated families and incarcerated children at the Texas-Mexico border in defiance of a federal court order; pulled 1,000 American troops out of Syria ignoring a commitment to allies and facilitating war against civilians there; and sent 2,000 American troops to Saudi Arabia without a congressional authorization or declaration of war.

He has also criminally obstructed a Department of Justice investigation of himself, but escaped prosecution because of the intercession of an attorney general more loyal to him than to the Constitution — the Constitution!

Video in link. It's 7 minutes long.
https://www.mediaite.com/tv/foxs-na...-ignore-constitution-reveal-character-traits/

 

[awpitt]

Everything Nap says is true but you probably wasted you time posting here.

 

[SamSpade]

The first paragraph consists of things he either is completely allowed to do or has been done by most Presidents in recent memory.

Basically - what's the point of bringing it up now? (I mean, declaring WAR? When was the last time Congress did that?).

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The first paragraph consists of things he either is completely allowed to do or has been done by most Presidents in recent memory.

Basically - what's the point of bringing it up now? (I mean, declaring WAR? When was the last time Congress did that?).

I won't disagree that Congress has seemingly absolved its constitutional responsibility to declare war, but it doesn't mean it's any more or less in the constitution.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Everything Nap says is true but you probably wasted you time posting here.

You mean like all the other Judge Nap stuff post-Trump-presidency?

 

[SamSpade]

You mean like all the other Judge Nap stuff post-Trump-presidency?

It's hard not to see a bit of personal animus against Trump in his pronouncements. He sounds like a jilted lover.
When it comes to Trump, I can't take him seriously.

 

[SamSpade]

I won't disagree that Congress has seemingly absolved its constitutional responsibility to declare war, but it doesn't mean it's any more or less in the constitution.

And WW2 was the LAST war we officially declared war. It's been almost eighty years and we've fought many wars.
I kind of doubt it is relevant anymore.

 

[PsyOps]

So, to be clear... Trump has committed all of these constitutional violations, yet congress doesn't find these violations to be violations, and is only focused on impeaching Trump on something that wasn't a violation of the constitution?

It's no secret that Judge Nap is no fan of Trump. I watched the video and he ranted on about the Emoluments Clause, while talking no specifics about where Trump has illegally spent money, or how pulling troops out of Syria was a violation of the constitution, or specifics about separating children from their families or incarcerating children. He ranted on about something that never happened. Trump listened to his critics and pulled out of the G7 occurring at the Trump resort in Miami. Trump was going to do this at no charge to the government or profit to himself. He was going to personally suck up the entire cost of hosting the G7; yet Nap feels this is a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

Oh yeah... Trump said it was phony. Watching the actual video of that comment, I don't get that Trump was saying the actual clause was phony; I believe he was saying that accusations of him violating that clause was phony. And I believe he's right. Hosting the G7 at one of his resorts - for free - is not a profit to himself. Judge Nap is doing what all of his other detractors do... mischaracterize (or take out of context) what Trump said or did all in the name of expressing his hatred for the man.

The one thing Judge Nap didn't do, in light of this impending impeachment, is demand Trump be charged up on these so-called constitutional violations for impeachment. Why not? Why did he leave that part out if he believes to adamantly that Trump violated the constitution on numerous occasions? Because, he knows damn-well none of it is really a violation of the constitution, and he's just using his platform as a means to disparage the president coming up on an election.

 

[SamSpade]

Trump tweeted a while back that he's been pissed at him ever since Trump turned him down for a spot on SCOTUS.

 

[This_person]

Everything Nap says is true but you probably wasted you time posting here.

I did not watch the video, but reading the snippet does not bode well to "everything Nap says is true", since nothing - no full thought - in the snippet is true.

I do not like Trump, though I like some of the things he's done and hate some of the things he's done, and I'm not a fan of his style. That said, he did not spend money not authorized - Congress has written laws signed by previous presidents that pretty much abdicate all their authority to the executive. If what he was doing was illegal (as stated in the snippet), their impeachment plans would be pretty darned easy. Same for the "separated families" canard, or sending the troops "without a declaration of war", etc. Pretty much everything stated in the snippet is BS, so there's no reason to watch the video.

This is not to say I think everything he's done was "right", but everything he's done has been within the bounds of laws as Congress has written them and previous presidents have signed them, giving Trump the authority to do as he pleases like this.

To be upset with Trump for exercising his authority is pretty foolish - be upset with the Congresses and presidents who gave Trump this authority, and the citizens who voted in those Congressmen time and again. Seems voting a person back into office who is doing things you don't want is kinda dumb, huh?

 

[This_person]

I won't disagree that Congress has seemingly absolved its constitutional responsibility to declare war, but it doesn't mean it's any more or less in the constitution.

What does declaring war have to do with having the troops there? Do we have to be in a declared war to have troops deployed? The Navy will be awfully upset to hear this.

 

[Gilligan]

Everything Nap says is true...

Except for all of it that was only his opinion, one not always shared by other legal experts. Except for that.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

It's hard not to see a bit of personal animus against Trump in his pronouncements. He sounds like a jilted lover.
When it comes to Trump, I can't take him seriously.

Is that because Trump is the only person who has told you that Judge Nap asked him to be a SCOTUS justice and you're basing your opinion of Nap on that unverified claim by someone who continually lies about what actually happened?

Judge Nap denied that happened and gave his recount of it.
https://www.newsweek.com/judge-andrew-napolitano-trump-response-scotus-fox-business-1408524

But you can't take Nap seriously. A man that has yet to give any reason to doubt him; that is up until Trump became President.

And WW2 was the LAST war we officially declared war. It's been almost eighty years and we've fought many wars.
I kind of doubt it is relevant anymore.

If that's the case, what other constitutional things should we ignore?

I agree Congress has found a way around it, but I believe that was Nap's point.

So, to be clear... Trump has committed all of these constitutional violations, yet congress doesn't find these violations to be violations, and is only focused on impeaching Trump on something that wasn't a violation of the constitution?

Constitutional violations happen every day. Police routinely violate the constitution, but no one cares when it gets brought up. Also, a violation of the constitution is NOT a requirement for impeachment.

It's no secret that Judge Nap is no fan of Trump. I watched the video and he ranted on about the Emoluments Clause, while talking no specifics about where Trump has illegally spent money, or how pulling troops out of Syria was a violation of the constitution, or specifics about separating children from their families or incarcerating children. He ranted on about something that never happened. Trump listened to his critics and pulled out of the G7 occurring at the Trump resort in Miami. Trump was going to do this at no charge to the government or profit to himself. He was going to personally suck up the entire cost of hosting the G7; yet Nap feels this is a violation of the Emoluments Clause.

The Emoluments Clause is about profiting off the office, not spending money. Nap touches on it when mentioning the G7 Summit that you also saw. There would be no costs to "suck up" because everything would have been "at cost". It appeared Nap was talking the overall optics of a President who still largely controls his companies and properties he's charging domestic and foreign governments to attend.

I agree pulling troops isn't a violation of the Constitution. We were in Syria because, under Obama, the US justified our presence under Article 51 of the U.N. Charter. Trump's decision was morally bankrupt and hastily executed, but I don't agree it's a Constitutional violation.

He didn't rant about separating children, he ranted against doing it despite an order to not do so by a federal judge.

Oh yeah... Trump said it was phony. Watching the actual video of that comment, I don't get that Trump was saying the actual clause was phony; I believe he was saying that accusations of him violating that clause was phony. And I believe he's right. Hosting the G7 at one of his resorts - for free - is not a profit to himself. Judge Nap is doing what all of his other detractors do... mischaracterize (or take out of context) what Trump said or did all in the name of expressing his hatred for the man.

"[talking about George Washington's desks] I don't think, you people with this phony Emoluments Clause, and by the way [goes on to talk about money he's lost]"


That was the only thing he said about it and we all know the Clause doesn't narrowly tailor to profit.

In that video, he agreed that he would receive "promotion", but basically said he gets enough as it is.

The one thing Judge Nap didn't do, in light of this impending impeachment, is demand Trump be charged up on these so-called constitutional violations for impeachment. Why not? Why did he leave that part out if he believes to adamantly that Trump violated the constitution on numerous occasions? Because, he knows damn-well none of it is really a violation of the constitution, and he's just using his platform as a means to disparage the president coming up on an election.

Again, one does not need to violate the constitution in order to be impeached. Nap knows this which is perhaps the reason he did not make the argument you are.

I also am not watching Nap's video and assuming that he is pointing out all the times he's specifically violated the Constitution. In fact, "violated" was never said, but I may have missed it. My take it that Nap is pointing out that despite taking an oath to faithfully (there's a bit where Nap is describing why that term is in there) execute and defend the Constitution, it doesn't appear to be important to Trump.

 

[SamSpade]

If that's the case, what other constitutional things should we ignore?

I agree Congress has found a way around it, but I believe that was Nap's point.

We've had five DECLARED wars - 1812, Mexican, Spanish-American War and WW1 and 2.
We have had MANY undeclared wars and well over 100 military actions - of which the most recent would be - since the beginning of the republic.
I don't want to get into the weeds over what powers the President DOES have, but being commander in chief, he does have considerable power to use the military.

For the judge to use THIS as an example seriously sounds like sour grapes. It's a bullshit argument.

 

[This_person]

A man that has yet to give any reason to doubt him...

When he says that Trump has spent federal dollars not authorized, he gives me reason to doubt him.

When he says Trump facilitated war against civilians, he gives me reason to doubt him.

When he says Trump sent troops somewhere without authorization from congress or a declaration of war, he gives me reason to doubt him.

When he says Trump criminally obstructed a DOJ investigation of himself, but escaped prosecution because of the intercession of an attorney general more loyal to him than to the Constitution, he gives me reason to doubt him.


He gives me a lot of reasons to doubt him.

 

[This_person]

We've had five DECLARED wars - 1812, Mexican, Spanish-American War and WW1 and 2.
We have had MANY undeclared wars and well over 100 military actions - of which the most recent would be - since the beginning of the republic.
I don't want to get into the weeds over what powers the President DOES have, but being commander in chief, he does have considerable power to use the military.

For the judge to use THIS as an example seriously sounds like sour grapes. It's a bullshit argument.

Using the military - even killing people and bombing and all of that - is not necessarily "war". In my personal opinion, we should treat every non-defensive action as a declaration of war on other nations, and Congress should officially declare it. But, let's take Grenada as an example - how many more people would have died needlessly if we had openly debated war declaration instead of just doing it?

There are times it's appropriate. There are times it is not.

I find it absolutely hilarious that Nap would be against Trump taking troops out of Syria, then being equally upset with Trump putting troops in Saudi Arabia. Just that hypocritical dichotomy makes the rest of his rant clearly personal, not reasoned and unbiased.

 

[SamSpade]

Using the military - even killing people and bombing and all of that - is not necessarily "war". In my personal opinion, we should treat every non-defensive action as a declaration of war on other nations, and Congress should officially declare it. But, let's take Grenada as an example - how many more people would have died needlessly if we had openly debated war declaration instead of just doing it?

There are times it's appropriate. There are times it is not.

I find it absolutely hilarious that Nap would be against Trump taking troops out of Syria, then being equally upset with Trump putting troops in Saudi Arabia. Just that hypocritical dichotomy makes the rest of his rant clearly personal, not reasoned and unbiased.

Just reading that bit I thought, damn, I'm not a judge but I'm pretty sure he can legally do every one of those things.
The worst one was the "obstructing" BS because they don't immediately capitulate to subpoenas that Congress doesn't have any legal reason to give.
Congress doesn't have the power to just compel members of the Executive. You want that power, go to court. They're somehow of the opinion that Congress is the last word in authority, but it's not - they chirp this oversight crap, but - go to court, dammit.

Nap is distorting the issue in order to put the President in the worst light possible.

 

[PsyOps]

Again, one does not need to violate the constitution in order to be impeached. Nap knows this which is perhaps the reason he did not make the argument you are.

I also am not watching Nap's video and assuming that he is pointing out all the times he's specifically violated the Constitution. In fact, "violated" was never said, but I may have missed it. My take it that Nap is pointing out that despite taking an oath to faithfully (there's a bit where Nap is describing why that term is in there) execute and defend the Constitution, it doesn't appear to be important to Trump.

But, you would agree that a violation of the constitution is an impeachable offense?

No, Nap did not detail all of Trump's offenses in the context of what he outlined in his first couple of sentences. All he talked about throughout is the Emoluments Clause. I really give little attention to people that say "you violated the law" without specifying what law was violated or how that law was violated. The whole video comes off as just another means to criticize Trump without any specifics to his accusations. A waste of 7 minutes of my day.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

The worst one was the "obstructing" BS because they don't immediately capitulate to subpoenas that Congress doesn't have any legal reason to give.

Pretty sure he's talking about the Mueller investigation.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

But, you would agree that a violation of the constitution is an impeachable offense?

No, Nap did not detail all of Trump's offenses in the context of what he outlined in his first couple of sentences. All he talked about throughout is the Emoluments Clause. I really give little attention to people that say "you violated the law" without specifying what law was violated or how that law was violated. The whole video comes off as just another means to criticize Trump without any specifics to his accusations. A waste of 7 minutes of my day.

It could be one, sure. If the House chooses that for justification.

I'm glad you watched it, though we disagree on the content.