It’s the Constitution, Stupid!

May 8, 2025 03:22 PM EDT, Thu

Hey Stupid! You ought to know the presidential Oath of Office. You’ve repeated the oath twice, unless you’re dementia-ing!

Presidential Oath of Office1

“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.”

Trump, asked if he has to ‘uphold the Constitution,’ says, ‘I don’t know’

Trump said on NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that he’s following lawyers’ advice as he tries to execute rapid deportations, arguing that giving immigrants due process is time-consuming.

May 4, 2025, 9:00 AM EDT / Updated May 4, 2025, 9:44 AM EDT

By Amanda Terkel and Lawrence Hurley

President Donald Trump argued in an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press” that fulfilling his ambitious campaign promise to rapidly carry out mass deportations may take precedence over giving immigrants the right to due process under the Constitution, as required by courts.

A central part of Trump’s agenda has been implementing the “largest deportation operation” in U.S. history, as he vowed during the 2024 campaign. In service of that goal, his administration has pressed the courts to allow the immediate removal of immigrants it accuses of being members of a Venezuelan gang, without giving them a chance to plead their case before a judge.

In an interview last month with “Meet the Press,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “Yes, of course,” when asked whether every person in the United States is entitled to due process.

Trump, however, isn’t so sure.

“I don’t know. I’m not, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t know,” Trump replied when asked by “Meet the Press” moderator Kristen Welker whether he agreed with Rubio. His comments came during a wide-ranging interview at his Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida, which aired Sunday.

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. Trump has also said that while “we always have to obey the laws,” he would like to see some “homegrown criminals” sent to El Salvador as well, a proposal that was widely panned by legal experts.

When Welker tried to point out what the Fifth Amendment said, Trump suggested that such a process would slow him down too much.

“I don’t know. It seems — it might say that, but if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or 2 million or 3 million trials,” he said. “We have thousands of people that are — some murderers and some drug dealers and some of the worst people on Earth.”

“I was elected to get them the hell out of here, and the courts are holding me from doing it,” he added.

“But even given those numbers that you’re talking about, don’t you need to uphold the Constitution of the United States as president?” Welker asked.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied. “I have to respond by saying, again, I have brilliant lawyers that work for me, and they are going to obviously follow what the Supreme Court said.”

The Supreme Court has already made it clear to the Trump administration in three different recent decisions that it has to allow basic due process rights for immigrants based on the long-standing understanding of the laws.

That would not require full trials, as Trump suggested. What it would require is the chance to appear before an immigration judge. Such judges are not part of the judicial branch; they are employees of the Justice Department. Administration officials have spoken out against such constraints, leading to allegations that they have defied instructions from lower court judges and even the Supreme Court.

One major point of contention has been the administration’s novel invocation of a 1798 law, the Alien Enemies Act, to quickly deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. The law has previously been used only during times of war, but the U.S. government is claiming that the gang is effectively an invading force connected to the Venezuelan government in order to use the law’s power to remove people without going through the processes laid out in other laws, like the Immigration and Nationality Act. That effort, though, is facing stiff opposition.

Men facing deportation under the law said they had no chance to contest whether they are even members of the gang, leading to two different Supreme Court decisions that blocked the administration from sending them to prison in El Salvador without due process. One decision came early on the morning of April 19, hours after men had been loaded onto buses and were seen heading toward an airport in Texas.

Another high-profile case has involved Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran man who was living in Maryland with his wife and three children when he was deported to El Salvador. The Trump administration accused him of being a member of the MS-13 gang — which Abrego Garcia’s wife and attorney deny — in its justification for deporting him to his home country, even though an immigration judge’s order from 2019 barred him from being sent there.

The administration has admitted that it was an “administrative error” to deport him, and the Supreme Court ordered that the government “facilitate” his return to the United States so that he can plead his case. The administration appears to have made little effort to do so and has insisted it doesn’t have the power to force El Salvador to do so.

“I don’t know,” Trump replied when asked whether anyone in his administration is in touch with the government of El Salvador to return Abrego Garcia. “You’d have to ask the attorney general that question.”

It is not disputed that Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally or that the government could potentially deport him.

Trump insisted he was not defying the Supreme Court.

“No. I’m relying on the attorney general of the United States, Pam Bondi, who’s very capable, doing a great job. Because I’m not involved in the legality or the illegality,” he said. “I have lawyers to do that and that’s why I have a great DOJ.”

Trump also said he may go back to the Supreme Court to seek clarification on what the justices meant by the word “facilitate.”

“We may do that. I was asking about that. We may do that,” he said.

The administration lost in lower courts over its response to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Abrego Garcia case but has yet to ask the justices to intervene for a second time.

The Trump administration has other options to speed up the deportation process — for example, by asking Congress to amend immigration laws and expand resources for immigration judges so that a backlog of cases can be processed more quickly. The administration, however, has fired some immigration judges.

Welker also noted that some Americans have been mistakenly detained by immigration authorities under Trump’s administration and asked whether lawful residents need to start carrying paperwork when they leave home, in order to prove their status.

“I don’t think that’ll be necessary,” Trump said. He then shifted, speaking about people who “have been killed, maimed, badly hurt by illegal immigrants that came over that are from prisons and from jails and from mental institutions.”

During his interview Friday, Trump repeatedly invoked his lawyers, saying he was heeding their instructions to make sure he was following the law. In addition to immigration, Trump addressed his threat to take away the tax-exempt status of Harvard University.

The Ivy League school recently sued the federal government over its decision to freeze more than $2 billion in funding. The administration claimed the university was refusing to take actions aimed at ending antisemitism on campus; Harvard said they were “unprecedented” demands to police the viewpoints of students, faculty and staff members.

Welker noted to Trump that federal law prohibits a president from directing the Internal Revenue Service to investigate and rescind an organization’s status.

“Do you think you’re following the law?” Welker asked.

“I’m going to just follow what the lawyers say,” Trump replied. “They say that we’re allowed to do that, and I’m all for it. But everything I say is subject to the laws being 100% adhered to.”

Trump also said he was willing to take the fight to court, if need be.

“Sure,” he added. “Why not?”

Trumph’s deportations show how he doesn’t understand the Constitution

The president seems to think he rules the Constitution, not the other way around.

May 8, 2025, 11:33 AM EDT

By Symone D. Sanders-Townsend, co-host of “The Weekend”

The U.S. Constitution is not a suggestion. It is the most sacred document in our country’s history.

Under the government it created, 12,583 people have served in Congress, 116 justices have been appointed to the Supreme Court’s bench and 45 presidents have led the executive branch.

Now one of those presidents is seeking to undermine it. Whether Donald Trump is deporting legal residents in defiance of the courts, freezing federal grants in defiance of Congress, attempting to unilaterally dismantle its amendments, or calling for its termination altogether, the current president seems to think he rules the Constitution, and not the other way around.

The latest case involves a 20-year-old Venezuelan identified in court papers only as Cristian, who was flown to El Salvador in March despite an earlier court order barring him from being deported.

The president can’t change the Constitution even if he wants, as he has no role in the amendment process.

The president is sworn to uphold the Constitution, not undermine it. He can’t even change it if he wants, as the president has no specific constitutional role in the process for amending the Constitution.

Article V outlines two methods, both of which have a high bar. Under the first, a proposal passed by a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate is then ratified by two-thirds of state legislatures. In the second, two-thirds of state legislatures can call for a new constitutional convention — something that has never happened in our history. In neither case is the president even consulted.

This is why our government has endured for more than two centuries. The founders designed it to be impervious to the whims of one man, but flexible enough to adapt with the times.

I’m concerned that some Americans think Trump’s word alone can rewrite our supreme governing document. That is not the case, nor should it be — no matter what Trump and his allies tell you.

President Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation is rightly studied in schools to this day. But his words aren’t what abolished slavery. The 13th Amendment did that.

The Seneca Falls Convention was monumental. But that’s not what ensured that millions of women could cast a ballot in the last election. The 19th Amendment did that.

And it’s not Donald Trump’s or DHS Secretary Kristi Noem’s words that determine who is entitled to due process under the law. Those are the Fifth and 14th Amendments.

The United States Constitution is not a gaudy skyscraper on Fifth Avenue, with the name “TRUMP” in gold letters. Quite the opposite: It says “WE THE PEOPLE.”

This is the moment we the people must stand up. If the rest of Trump’s term continues on this path, the document he swore twice to protect and defend will be nothing more than faded paper and the 27 amendments forged over centuries to protect us will fade right along with it.

For more thought-provoking insights from Michael Steele, Alicia Menendez and Symone Sanders-Townsend, watch “The Weeknight” every Monday-Friday at 7 p.m. ET starting May 5th on MSNBC.

Symone D. Sanders-Townsend *Symone D. Sanders-Townsend is an author and a co-host of “The Weekend,” which airs Saturdays and Sundays at 8 a.m. ET on MSNBC. She is a former deputy assistant to President Joe Biden and a former senior adviser to and chief spokesperson for Vice President Kamala Harris**

  1. Article 2 Section 1 Clause 8 / Constitution Annotated / Congress.gov / Library of Congress ↩

Related Posts