- cross-posted to:
- pravda_news@news.abolish.capital
- cross-posted to:
- pravda_news@news.abolish.capital
You must log in or # to comment.
The Supreme Court can’t just nullify parts of the Constitution.
And who is going to stop them?
We, the people.
Maybe I’m cynical, but i don’t see ‘we the people’ having any impact on what your chosen leader does. They gave him immunity. He can and will do whatever he wants and you can just suck it up. He might decide that white women are garbage just like the haitian, somali, pakistani, etc etc etc people are. I mean he’s already gone after MTG with death threats.
They didn’t “give him immunity” in that sense. He still can’t just rewrite the Constitution all by himself. What they gave him…and every other president, both past and future…was something they already had. The authority to issue orders that other people would not have the legal right to give.
All the way back through history, presidents have made decisions that would, or should be considered “illegal” if anyone else had made them. They’ve engaged in wars with questionable motives, supplied weapons to enemies of the US, ordered the extrajudicial killings of individuals deemed a danger to the country, etc. If every president was immediately answerable to the legality of their decisions, they would not be able to act in a decisive way. So, the Supreme Court both retroactively and proactively granted the office of the president the legal authority to act without fear of prosecution.
But that does not give him the authority to simply “do whatever he wants”. It gives him a certain amount of leeway, when performing his Constitutional duties…but it doesn’t give him free reign to just violate the law itself. He still has to be acting within the official capacity that the office allows.
Authority is only what people allow a person to have. If a president says jump, but no one jumps, he has no authority.
If he says jump, and people agree to jump, he has authority.
Its the system that’s setup. And it depends if people follow the system
In this case, that authority is granted through the Constitution. If it’s written in there, it counts. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t. Meaning, he can’t just rewrite the Constitution, because the Constitution is very clear that he does not have the authority to do that. Neither does the judiciary.
The Constitution can only be amended by a supermajority in both the House and Senate, or by a National Convention. That’s how the system is set up.
For a counterpoint, see the 14th Amendment Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This orange piece of shit president we have isn’t qualified under The Constitution to hold office. I wish people would understand how irrelevant The Constitution has become over the past decade.
This argument is just one of definitions. One of you is talking about practical authority and the other is talking about theoretical authority under a given system of rules.
The rules of chess say a bishop only moves diagonally, but if the person you’re playing against pulls a gun on you and says they’ll move it wherever they want, it doesn’t do much good to say “but you can’t do that”.
Also the fact that they didn’t decline this out of hand is clear sign they are considering it.
The Supreme Court’s job is literally to interpret the Constitution. If they decide that it says every democrat owes Republican $50, then that’s what it legally says. There is no higher court to appeal to. Their word is final.
They absolutely can and absolutely have and absolutely will continue to do so. They are going to have to be “removed”.
Oh yeah we will see about that.
They can change the definitions from beneath our feet instead
They literally just did by disenfranchising non-whites in Texas.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
Not a lot of ambiguity there, if you consider words to mean what they mean.
That’s your first mistake. “Fake news” wasn’t just a defection to say that’s not true. Its an erosion of the meaning of words. All they need is just a crack to wriggle in and here we are with a bad faith SCOTUS willing to roll back anything based on semantics at best.
I’m tired boss. Anything else I have to say would be TOS.
Terms of Service?
Yes. Shorthand for saying that I want to say something that would violate most social media’s terms of service, so I can’t.
The fact it’s even being considered is very telling once one understands it’s entirely and obviously unconstitutional.
