Here’s a rewritten version of the article with Markdown formatting, aiming for around 600 words and maintaining the original tone:
Trump’s "I Don’t Know" and the Constitution: A Modest Proposal
This past weekend, during an interview that is still ringing in the ears of legal scholars and bewildered citizens alike, President Donald Trump was asked a seemingly straightforward question: Does he need to uphold the U.S. Constitution? His answer, a succinct and profoundly unsettling "I don’t know," has sent shockwaves through the nation. But here’s the thing: I find myself surprisingly in agreement with him.
I’ve always regarded the Constitution as something of an overhyped document, a collection of vaguely inspiring pronouncements cobbled together by a group of powdered-wig enthusiasts who, frankly, hadn’t even invented the internet yet. To me, it feels less like a sacred framework designed to "form a more perfect Union" and more like a dusty historical artifact best suited for a museum display, perhaps with a velvet rope and a small plaque. You know, "Do not touch."
Now, I acknowledge that during his inauguration, Trump did utter those carefully scripted words about faithfully executing the office of President and preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, "so help me God." A stirring moment, to be sure. However, let’s not forget the critical caveat: "to the best of my ability." When you factor in a realistic assessment of Trump’s actual abilities – let’s just say, they’re more attuned to real estate deals than constitutional law – that oath quickly devolves into either the aforementioned "I don’t know" or a dismissive shrug.
Look, it’s true that Trump might be the first president to publicly question whether his job description includes, you know, actually following the rules. But just because he’s breaking precedent doesn’t automatically make him wrong. Consider this: maybe he’s simply a savvy businessman, a visionary thinker who dares to venture outside "the box." And what is "the box" in this case? Merely the rule of law and a paltry 240 years of established precedent. No big deal.
The now-infamous "I-dunno-heard-’round-the-world" moment occurred during an interview with NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Host Kristen Welker, innocently enough, brought up the administration’s latest immigration policy, which seems to involve deporting people without the pesky formality of due process. "The 5th Amendment says everyone deserves due process," Welker stated.
Trump’s response? “It might say that.”
Again, he’s spot on. The 5th Amendment might say that. And the fact that it absolutely, unequivocally, without a shadow of a doubt does say that is, of course, entirely irrelevant to a president who’s trying to deport a large number of people in the most expeditious – and arguably illegal – way possible.
Trump elaborated, referring to the sheer volume of immigrants his administration is eager to deport with maximum efficiency. "But if you’re talking about that, then we’d have to have a million or two million or three million trials."
Precisely! It’s a matter of practicality, people. Anyone who hasn’t actually read the Constitution (which, let’s be honest, is most of us) understands that it has inherent limitations. Sure, everyone is theoretically entitled to due process. But that entitlement evaporates the moment it becomes inconvenient to hold a bunch of trials. Then, poof! That right simply vanishes.
I suspect Trump would extend this logic to the 2nd Amendment as well. It might say something about "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed," but seriously, come on. Did the Founding Fathers foresee the existence of this many guns? We’re swimming in firearms, people! We’ve got roughly 400 million of them floating around. A little infringement seems not only reasonable, but almost mandatory, at this point.
If due process can become too burdensome, so can gun rights. I eagerly anticipate the president’s comprehensive plan to round up all those excessively abundant firearms. It will be glorious.
But back to Trump’s evolving, shall we say, "interpretive" view of the Constitution. Let’s be honest, he’s been giving it the side-eye for quite some time. All those tariffs? Arguably unconstitutional. Shutting down federal agencies without congressional approval? Ditto. Trying to end birthright citizenship? Wildly, spectacularly unconstitutional.
And let’s not forget that Trump is openly flouting a U.S. Supreme Court order to return a Maryland man who was wrongfully deported to a Salvadoran prison. You know, despite the Constitution being rather explicit on the whole "he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed" thing.
Now, some overly sensitive types might argue that this Constitution-averse behavior is a slippery slope to tyranny. I disagree. It’s more like a carefully constructed set of stairs to tyranny, perhaps even equipped with a handrail to help the 78-year-old Trump navigate it safely.
If a super-smart businessman president can openly question whether everyone has a right to due process, maybe it’s a sign we have too many rights in the first place. Do we really need a right to vote, a right to express ourselves freely, and a right to practice any religion without government intrusion? Sounds awfully greedy, doesn’t it?
It’s clearly time for America to tighten its collective belt and jettison some of these supposed "truths" we hold to be "self-evident." Oh… wait a minute. That’s from the Declaration of Independence.
Come to think of it, I’m not entirely sure we need that thing either. The way Trump’s been talking lately, we might actually be better off crawling back to British rule. At least they have good tea.
