Trump's not a lawyer, Walker's not a lawyer, Reagan wasn't a lawyer.
Our lawyer presidents haven't done that great of a job for the most part.
So, the writer wants to skewer Trump on a point of law.
No, Ronald Reagan wasn't a lawyer.
But he
did know the Constitution.
Dwight Eisenhower wasn't a lawyer. But
he knew the Constitution, too.
George Washington (surveyor/farmer/soldier), William Henry Harrison (soldier), Zachary Taylor (soldier), Andrew Johnson
(soldier, tailor), Ulysses S. Grant (soldier), James Garfield (minister and teacher), Warren Harding (journalist and editor),
Herbert Hoover (engineer/investor), Harry Truman (farmer/haberdasher), John F. Kennedy (writer), Lyndon Johnson (teacher),
Jimmy Carter (sailor, farmer), and both George Bushes (both pilots, both businessmen, one a baseball owner), weren't lawyers,
either. But
they knew the Constitution, too, never mind how frequently some of
them ignored or traduced it.
And when any of them
did show ignorance of or traduce the Constitution, they were (and are, in enough of the histories)
judged accordingly. We would not consider
them immune to such judgment, when it came to those acts or signings that
went against the Constitution, nor should we consider
any man or woman holding the office of the presidency (or at any
level of government) now or in the future immune to it.
You don't
have to be a lawyer to understand that taking property before or without convicting someone of an actual crime,
or failing to return that property promptly and pronto when someone is found not guilty of an actual crime, is a despicable
violation of the Fifth Amendment. I'm not a lawyer* but
I know it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Assuming you're not a
lawyer, I assume
you know it's a Fifth Amendment violation. Come to think of it, you don't have to be a lawyer to comprehend
and conjugate the Constitution itself. (When His Excellency Al-Hashish Field Marshmallow Dr. Barack Obama Dada was foolish
enough to suggest that
only lawyers "could" understand the Constitution, there were even those among his political allies
who had to bite their inner cheeks to keep from laughing their fool heads off.)
Donaldus Minimus took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution. The oath did not and does not immunise him from its proper
conjugation simply because he isn't a lawyer. And if he supports a law that does indeed do violence to the Constitution, he
shouldbe held to account and criticised for it. The bleatings of Himself and his minions in the White House notwithstanding, even the
president of the United States
is not and
ought not to be immune to such criticism, no matter his or her prior profession.
And, assuredly,
no, the fact that past presidents who weren't lawyers (or who were, for that matter)
have ignored or
traduced the Constitution does
not give Donaldus Minimus or his eventual successors a license to do likewise.
(* Fair disclosure: I'm not a lawyer but I did take a course in constitutional law as part of my political science minor in
college.)