Rounds Issues Statement on Former President’s Call to Terminate the United States Constitution
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement after the former president called for the termination of the United States Constitution:
“Americans have a deep appreciation for the Constitution and our Founding Fathers who risked their lives to establish it.
“As elected officials, we take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. We should never dishonor that oath. No one is above the Constitution.
“As I’ve said before, there is no evidence of widespread voter fraud that would alter the results of the 2020 election.
“Anyone who desires to lead our country must commit to protecting the Constitution. They should not threaten to terminate it.
“In South Dakota, Mount Rushmore serves as an enduring reminder of that commitment and the stability our Constitution has provided for over 200 years.
“Despite their imperfections, our Founding Fathers crafted a Constitution that has stood the test of time and sets America apart from the rest of the world. We continue to strive for a more perfect union.
“I believe Americans want leaders, like those on Mount Rushmore, who will defend the Constitution and unite us in our belief that America is truly a shining city upon a hill.”
###
If he was right about elections, he is probably right about this.
If we don’t have election integrity, we don’t have domestic integrity.
“If”
He wasn’t then and he isn’t now… “right about this”. Every Secretary of State knows it. Every court knows it. Trump is wandering into dangerous territory.
Trump has always been in dangerous territory.
is there no line of sanity, decorum or just plain circus-geek shock value that trump can cross, that his followers won’t gleefully rush in behind to cross with him? enough of this self promoting mussolini clone. enough. if you can’t see his desperate clawing for what it is, take up a different hobby than politics.
Thank you, Senator!
“I do solemnly swear 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.”
If you want to be President, you recite those words. But he wants more than that. He demands that he be placed above the Constitution. The one and only.
Trump called for “termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution”. Those are the rantings of a lunatic.
Trump lost, why can’t we get over that and move on.
Because he has some strange spell over so many Republicans.
happily it won’t be many at all if he keeps this up.
Donald Trump has always been a proud Anti-Federalist. To understand him, you have review and study the politics of Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason, three of our founding fathers. Trump speaks often of returning to the country our pride, our state allegiance, and to repeal amendments 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 and I would add the 11 Amendment as well removing the strangle hold the Attorneys have on the governing process. This would return us back to the original construct of the constitution, while restoring the T.O.N.A amendment. This would place the State Legislature’s back in full control of the federal Government.
No surprise Mike is pro-slavery. Being pro-stupidity kind of gave it away.
Interesting you put words in my mouth, Never said a word about slavery. Slavery is not coming back, even if the 13 amendment is repealed. “WE” changed the culture. Now, I will wait for the next personal attack on me…this is so much fun.
The 13th amendment’s sole purpose was to outlaw slavery, so being for its repeal puts you firmly on the other side of the only issue.
“AMENDMENT XIII
Section 1.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
Why does this need repealing in the first place? State’s rights? States rights to what, exactly?
Oh right, you type first, double down second, and think third (at best). You want to admit you messed up or do you want to go ahead and continue to dig your reputation’s grave on this forum?
If you want to understand my reasoning to NOT supporting the 13th amendment, then ask me, stop assuming, thank you. I can respect your opinions more if you simply make an effort to ask for my belief, before making assumptions. I do study, research, and understand more than you think I do. “WE” are a free republic.
1) I said,and stated, repealing the 13 amendment will NOT bring back slavery as we knew it prior to 1861, those days are behind us. “WE” changed our culture, let alone beliefs a country.
2) If you notice the amendment clearly, along side other amendments adopted since 1868, the real reason I want the amendments repealed is its double edged sword of authority written into the amendment itself…
Section 2.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”
I disagree with this section, and since 1868, this section has been placed in just about every amendment since, and it is unwarranted, and imposes let alone doubles down upon the states that “CONGRESS” is the authority over all matters of all activities in a state..
That section is NOT required, as the actual Constitution already states:
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 18:
To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof.
Furthermore, My reasoning behind repealing the 13 Amendment written has merit, let alone I stand behind my beliefs.
Placing these “extra enforcement sections” in an amendment is in excess of congressional power, and sends a mixed message to the states that CONGRESS is much superior to the Legislature(s).
Furthermore, repealing amendments 12, 13, 14, 16, 17 would restore some means of authority back to the legislatures in holding CONGRESS accountable, let alone place a firm, jurisdictional boundary between the Federal Territory vs State Territory in regards to “Economic Activity”.
“WE” can come back later on, and adopt a new Amendment which officially and more effectively bans slavery without section two, and without the word “Involuntary” being used in the amendmetn itself.
All the amendment needs to say is a ‘stated fact”
“Throughout the Territorial Boundaries of the United States, no man, or woman of any such race, sex, or creed shall ever be bound to another person, government, or association.”
If you want want to beret me by insulting my intelligence, you get no where in the call for diplomacy. I stand behind my beliefs.
So you either: 1) don’t realize through your convoluted logic that the better option to achieve your stated end would simply be to add a new amendment nullifying the Congressional Power of Enforcement clauses; 2) do realize that, but just go out of your way to further convolute the process and in doing so legalize slavery (13th amendment) and discrimination (14th) along the way. It’s a failure to think it through in either case.
Stand by your beliefs all you want, but the words you’re looking for are “berate” and “nowhere.”
So says the DFP sycophant.
Traitor.
LOL
Yeah, I bet Donald has studied so much of the “anti-federalist” movement over the years. Especially since he used to be a democrat and donated to Hillary. He is truly the political scholar of our time, and doesn’t do much other than study these historic founders like Jefferson, Henry, and Mason. He certainly doesn’t spend his time golfing, traveling, and inciting violence by influencing a bunch of dips#!ts. He would never hire someone to write a book under his name and sell it for $80. He understands that the founding fathers wanted our country and constitution to NEVER change, regardless of how our country changes. He confirms this through messages from God Himself.
i detect sarcasm. i was most offended by the notion that lawyers are why the nation’s laws don’t work. the picking apart of just laws by opportunistic lawyers can only be halted by good lawyers and better lawyers. the inept and evil will always leave destroyed lives in their wake, so we always need the good and the better to mitigate damage and restore justice. it’s a fight that must always be fought. i bet the clearest thing in trump’s mind is the value of a better lawyer.
“This would place State Legislatures back in control of the Federal Government””….back when??? This was settled, initially, when Andrew Jackson threatened to send troops into South Carolina, and finally, by the American Civil War, a national tragedy which led to “a rebirth of freedom”, in the words of Abraham Lincoln. Are we to have another Civil War?? WHY??
You highly confuse the stated purpose why President Jackson sent troops to S.C, it was to guard, a U.S Military Fort, let alone federal property, let alone to guard against a protest, or riot which had arisen on federal property. And the cause of the first civil war was the direct over encroachment of the federal govt beyond its constitutional authority, the effects of the war led to the 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 amendments in the years looming, let alone the civil rights (privileges) given to those who wished to become U.S Citizens of Federal Territory outside the “Sovereign States”. Today, we have this side by side ‘citizenship” whereas the federal govt coerced the 11 Southern States back into union, so long as they accepted the newly adopted constitution as implied today. Whereas prior to the war, the Federal Govt could NOT grant citizenship, citizenship was defined by birth, let alone within the state of which your birth took place. The first civil war did NOT change anything other than today, the Federal GOvt is now granted permission to care for, and protect U.S Citizens, regardless of where they reside, whereas the States were now forced to enforce, and protect those privilages, immunities, civil rights given to U.S Citizens same as the states defend and protect the inelianable rights of American Citizens of the States, while those who place themselves in federal territory as citizens of the District, are now bound to to the debts caused by the war, and any such obligated debts of the union prior the war.
IF we were to have a second civil war, I suspect it will be for the reason of whether or not the Federal Govt is continuing to further encroach upon the states jurisdiction further.
You’re speaking total nonsense. Why you want to destroy the greatest democracy and method of civil governance in the history of civilization is beyond my understanding.