- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: House Democrat plans to file a constitutional amendment to invalidate Supreme Court ruling
Posted on 7/2/24 at 6:41 am to cajunangelle
Posted on 7/2/24 at 6:41 am to cajunangelle
quote:
I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law," Morelle wrote on X. "This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy."
These people are so stupid
0
Posted on 7/2/24 at 6:44 am to Penrod
quote:
Do we want Democrat Presidents to be “above the law”
How is it possible for a POTUS to govern without immunity for their constitutional duties?
No one on the left has yet articulated why they disagree with the actual decision. Just platitudes. Do you also want to rescind legislative immunity? Civil immunity? Immunity for state and local officials? After all, no one is “above the law.”
Posted on 7/2/24 at 6:45 am to cajunangelle
...Posted on 7/2/24 at 6:47 am to cajunangelle
These twits don’t even care that doing so opens up the door immediately for prosecution of black jesus & biden
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:00 am to boudinman
quote:. Pass? It doesn’t have a chance. It’s got to get 2/3 in both the house and senate and then be ratified by 3/4 of the states. It’s a complete waste of time and he probably has no idea what a constitutional amendment even entails.
That won't pass in house or senate. Just grandstanding.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:00 am to cajunangelle
I gaurentee 95% of progressives couldn’t even begin to tell you what passing a constitutional amendment entails and actually thinks this is a good idea and possible.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:21 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Good lord journalists need to read the actual decision. It's not that long.
It’s also not that complicated. It also doesn’t necessarily absolve Trump from prosecution risk, it just adds a consideration for the prosecutor. The outcry over this just shows how flimsy these cases against Trump are. It also shows how myopic these people are, claiming that democracy is at stake because these cases, that may ultimately not mean a damn thing without this ruling, may be harder to see all the way through.
Got to admit, this last week has been a bit depressing. We are getting a very close look at just how easily people can be manipulated. Meanwhile, POTUS confirms he is an old bumbling idiot on live television, and the admin doubles down by saying he is good for 6 hours per day. The immediate reaction is to either call Trump a liar or to move to another candidate for strategic reasons, rather than question their choice in the first place. Maybe, the admin has been lying or just plain wrong about the economy. Maybe they really had no clue how to monitor inflation. Maybe they were and still are devoid of leadership. Accountability appears to be dead.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:21 am to cajunangelle
Does he even know what it takes to get an Amendment passed?
IF he files the legislation, it will die before ever leaving the House and will be used only as a propaganda tool. A tool created by a tool, how fitting.
IF he files the legislation, it will die before ever leaving the House and will be used only as a propaganda tool. A tool created by a tool, how fitting.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:22 am to cajunangelle
quote:
As impeachment was made to be a joke.
The founders envisioned an ethical and even-handed fourth estate. The current lapdog media makes a lot of things a joke
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:22 am to Bard
Hell if they want to FAFO let’s just have a convention of states. I’m ready. Hint; there’s more red states than blue.
This post was edited on 7/2/24 at 7:23 am
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:29 am to The Maj
quote:
Dude slept through civics class...
Separate but Equal
This is actually the correct procedural mechanism to rectify it.
No comment on the merits but a constitutional amendment is the proper mechanism to address what you see as an erroneous interpretation of the Constitution by SCOTUS.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:35 am to cajunangelle
So...Obama could be charged for using drone strikes for killing American citizens and Biden could be charged for killing American citizens via criminal illegals and drugs coming across our border for which he did not use existing laws to secure.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:38 am to The Maj
quote:
Dude slept through civics class...
Separate but Equal
The ironing
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:39 am to AUauditor
quote:
Obama could be charged for using drone strikes for killing American citizens
Maybe
quote:
and Biden could be charged for killing American citizens via criminal illegals and drugs coming across our border
No
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:40 am to boosiebadazz
quote:
No comment on the merits
Of course you don’t
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:41 am to cajunangelle
So they are going to call an Article V convention? Please, dear God, do this. It won’t turn out like they think it will. Depending on November, 3/4 of the state legislatures could be hard Republican by the time it’s convened.
This post was edited on 7/2/24 at 7:43 am
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:42 am to Tesla
They don’t have the balls. A situation where any state can bring any amendment and pass and ratify with a 2/3 vote will NEVER bring them anything good but it could kill their party forever.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:45 am to Proximo
I haven’t read what the guy is proposing.
As far as SCOTUS, I expected it to get kicked down for a factual finding with some guidance. That guidance is kind of squishy and subjective but that’s the nature of how it has to come from the courts.
There won’t be a consensus, but the way to have more firm guidance on what behavior gets immunity actually would come from the legislative branch via an amendment.
As far as SCOTUS, I expected it to get kicked down for a factual finding with some guidance. That guidance is kind of squishy and subjective but that’s the nature of how it has to come from the courts.
There won’t be a consensus, but the way to have more firm guidance on what behavior gets immunity actually would come from the legislative branch via an amendment.
This post was edited on 7/2/24 at 9:18 am
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:47 am to cajunangelle
Democrats are for Democrats not democracy.
Posted on 7/2/24 at 7:47 am to cajunangelle
Cool, i'll wait for when we get to prosecute Obama for murdering a US citizen via drone strike.
Page 2 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News