quote:
I'd love to get a constitutional congress together to add some additional amendments, but the Dems don't want to do that with the majority of state legislatures being red. They are wishcasting hard on this SC stuff.

I don't want the retards who populate most state legislatures touching the Constitution to begin with, honestly.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by Penrod

Member since Jan 2011

55553 posts

Posted on 7/2/24 at 1:01 pm to Indefatigable

quote:
How is it possible for a POTUS to govern without immunity for their constitutional duties?

I agree with the SCOTUS decision, or at least the Barrett concurrence. I've posted elsewhere that I'd hate to see a situation in which every President gets dragged into criminal court, and that's just what we would have if there was no immunity.

Plus, what have we really given up? We can still remove them from office; we just can't send them to jail. Big deal! It's not like we are going to have a crime wave of unaccountable Presidents.

0 ...

Report Post

Posted by WeeWee

Member since Aug 2012

45560 posts

Posted on 7/2/24 at 3:33 pm to cajunangelle

quote:
Democratic New York Rep. Joe Morelle announced Monday that he will file a constitutional amendment that will virtually invalidate the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that presidents have presidential immunity for some "official acts," but not unofficial ones, which means they cannot be prosecuted for "official acts." However, it did not specify what constitutes official versus unofficial acts.

Critics of the new ruling claim that the high court has essentially made it so a president is "above the law" because they cannot be prosecuted for their official actions under normal law, according to The Hill. But sitting presidents who commit crimes while in office can still be impeached and removed by the Senate.

“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."

A constitutional amendment would be the proper way to address their disagreement with the ruling. However, I do not see how they would get it passed and ratified.

Page 1 2 3 4 5