Donald Trump Takes Over the Kennedy Center- Page 23

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 7:26am

Kad said: "Generally, people did not think these were things a president would or could do."

The truth of your post is such an amazingly sad reality in terms of how Trump could have been completely avoided.

Our Constitution naively lists only (3) requirements for presidential candidates: candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and have been a resident of the United States for at least 14 years. Had there been any general requirement(s) regarding moral character (i.e., no felony convictions, as is true in many employment situations), the country would not be in this mess.

It also would not hurt to require evidence of a comprehensive knowledge of the US Constitution. In my state, public school students are required to pass a test on the US Constitution as an 8th grade graduation requirement. Those students who do not pass the test cannot move forward into High School.

It's time to pressure our legisators for an amendment to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 7:27am

<Forced page refresh>

[MezzA101]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 9:35am

Kennedy Center Faces Backlash Over Artist Payments

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/music/music-news/kennedy-center-backlash-artist-payments-1236439599/

[EmceeHammer]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 9:49am

John Adams said: "Kad said: "Generally, people did not think these were things a president would or could do."

The truth of your post is such an amazingly sad reality in terms of how Trump could have been completely avoided.

Our Constitution naively lists only (3)requirements for presidential candidates...:"

The Constitution also says that no one who has "previously taken an oath" and then "engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same" shall hold any office. The Constitution makes it clear that Donald Trump (along with several members of Congress) is disqualified from office following the insurrection of January 6.

Amending the Constitution is necessary, but an easier solution would be to just enforce it. I think the naivety is in failing to predict how partisanship and polarization would short circuit the checks and balances built into the system.

Back to Broadway related news... The MAGA-fied Kennedy Center is hosting the FIFA World Cup Draw/Trump Peace Prize Awards this afternoon. Nicole Scherzinger is scheduled to perform. Will she wear the hat? 

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 10:50am

EmceeHammer said: "Amending the Constitution is necessary, but an easier solution would be to just enforce it. I think the naivety is in failing to predict how partisanship and polarization would short circuit the checks and balances built into the system."

I have no argument against this other than to say that in regards to an 'easier' solution, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". 

IMO, it's pretty evident that enforcing the Constitution is so tediously time consuming - especially when dealing with someone like Trump whose primary focus is to manipulate and confound the process so excessively, that eventually it becomes more practical to re-structure the goal toward seeking a settlement.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 11:06am

EmceeHammer said: "Back to Broadway related news... The MAGA-fied Kennedy Center is hosting the FIFA World Cup Draw/Trump Peace Prize Awards this afternoon. Nicole Scherzinger is scheduled to perform. Will she wear the hat?"

The "Trump Peace Prize Awards".... I want to vomit.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 11:28am

John Adams said: "Had there been any general requirement(s) regarding moral character (i.e., no felony convictions, as is true in many employment situations), the country would not be in this mess."

The writers of the Constitution crafted the impeachment process to take care of this. In a sane world, Trump would have been impeached and convicted, and therefore barred from public office, early in his first term. I really don't want an administration to be able to prosecute its political enemies for whatever crimes it cooks up to prevent them from ever taking power.

It also would not hurt to require evidence of a comprehensive knowledgeof the US Constitution. In my state, public school students are required to pass a test on the US Constitution as an 8th grade graduation requirement. Those students who do not pass the test cannot move forward into High School.

As with the previous point, I understand where you're coming from, but this also feels like something that would be ripe for abuse (cf. literacy tests as a qualifications for voting during the Jim Crow era).

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 2:07pm

kdogg36 said: (re: requiring evidence of a comprehensive knowledge of the US Constitution) "I understand where you're coming from, but this also feels like something that would be ripe for abuse (cf. literacy tests as a qualifications for voting during the Jim Crow era)."

And yet it's been an acceptable practice for many, many years (although I don't feel  your example of literacy tests during the Jim Crow era applies).

In order to obtain a driver's license, every candidate needs to prove competency regarding the rules of the road.

In order to get my teaching certificate, I not only had to prove competency via my overall GPA and proof of required coursework, I also had to provide proof of additional course completion, on a yearly basis, in order to maintain the endorsements listed on my teaching certificate (per the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB]).

Similar competency requirements are in place for careers in medicine, law enforcement, etc...  Yet for the highest role in our governmental system, one need only show proof of citizenship, age and residency. 

If a person is required to swear an oath to protect the Constitution, it is not unreasonable to insist they also demonstrate comprehensive knowledge of the subject they are sworn to protect.  

As evidenced by Trump, the oath is completely meaningless when the candidate doesn't understand what it is they swear to: "support and defend" as well as "bear true faith and allegiance to the same".

Updated On: 12/5/25 at 02:07 PM

[MezzA101]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 2:10pm

FIFA Kisses Up to Trump With Absurd “Peace Prize”

https://www.thenation.com/article/society/fifa-trump-infantino-peace-prize/

[merle57]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 3:19pm

Trump said, again, it is the Trump Kennedy Center.  Tragic. 

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 5:43pm

John Adams said: "Yet for the highest role in our governmental system, one need only show proof of citizenship, age and residency."

My response: the people should take each candidate's moral character, and constitutional literacy, into account when choosing a president. If they can't do that - which it appears they can't - then no legal band aids are going to turn a country full of garbage into a functioning democracy.

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 7:01pm

merle57 said: "Trump said, again, it is the Trump Kennedy Center. Tragic."

Just saw this on Colbert last night:

The Trump administration has renamed the U.S. Institute of Peace after President Donald Trump

[John Adams]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 7:18pm

kdogg36 said: "John Adams said: "Yet for the highest role in our governmental system, one need only show proof of citizenship, age and residency."

My response: the people should take each candidate's moral character, and constitutional literacy, into account when choosing a president. If they can't do that - which it appears they can't - then no legal band aids are going to turn a country full of garbage into a functioning democracy."

If, as you stated, it appears to you they (the people) can't take each candidate's moral character, and constitutional literacy, into account when choosing a president, why or how  can your suggestion possibly be something to consider? Why isn't a suggestion that we, the people, urge our representatives to add a Constitutional amendment to prevent another Donald Trump from darkening our lives, be something I should put on a back burner to your suggestion (which, honestly, kdogg, you, yourself don't believe is possible to accomplish).

I've always liked you, kdogg. I'm sincerely asking the questions above and I look forward to your response.

[kdogg36]

Posted: 12/5/25 at 10:20pm

John Adams said: "If, as you stated, it appears to youthey (the people) can't take each candidate's moral character, and constitutional literacy, into account when choosing a president, why orhow can your suggestion possibly be something to consider? Why isn't a suggestion that we, the people, urge our representatives to add a Constitutional amendment to prevent another Donald Trump from darkening our lives, be something I should put on a back burner to your suggestion (which, honestly, kdogg, you, yourself don't believe is possible to accomplish)."

I've always felt that, in a representative democracy like the one our system aims to be, the voters should be able to choose whoever they want, weighing all the factors that are important to them. For this reason, I've always opposed things like term limits or age restrictions for public office, in addition to the proposed restrictions we're discussing now. If the people can really be trusted to choose, they should be able to decide whether or not someone has been in office too long and needs to move on; whether or not a candidate hasn't lived long enough to have the required experience to govern; whether or not their rap sheet disqualifies them from office; and whether or not their knowledge of civics is up to snuff. So, what I'm saying here is not really anything new for me; it's just that the ambient political climate has led me to put a particularly pessimistic spin on it. 

I greatly enjoy your contributions as well, and I thank you for another fascinating mini-discussion!

Updated On: 12/5/25 at 10:20 PM