|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:End of the day there's no constitutional order that can survive a complicit desire to overthrow that order shared among all those who control all branches of government. If the president desires to pardon himself and congress and the courts allow it and the people do not revolt, what were words on paper supposed to do? Maybe not have rigged the senate so that it can be decided by a small minority of the very wealthy?
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 14:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Murgos posted:Maybe not have rigged the senate so that it can be decided by a small minority of the very wealthy? Probably should have avoided sending representatives made up almost entirely of the wealthiest land owners to write the rules then. Maybe next Constitutional Convention we hold once we figure out how to not let the Gulf Coast states know it's happening. Gyges fucked around with this message at 14:45 on Nov 17, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 14:43
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Maybe not have rigged the senate so that it can be decided by a small minority of the very wealthy? The country was controlled by a small minority of the very wealthy. I get that our whole mythology conditions us to think of the constitution as a bunch of people sitting down trying to come up with the best, most free and fair system of government, but that's not how any of this works. It was a bunch of elites who had won control of the country by force of arms trying to come up with a stable power-sharing agreement. Yes, many of them had legit principles regarding democracy, and yes I think most if not all of them thought democracy/republican government was the best path to stability, but at the end of they day they weren't giving themselves power--they already had power or represented those who did--what they were doing was figuring out how much of it they had to/should give up to make the country work.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 14:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The country was controlled by a small minority of the very wealthy. Gyges posted:Probably should have avoided sending representatives made up almost entirely of the wealthiest land owners to write the rules then. Maybe next Constitutional Convention we hold once we figure out how to not let the Gulf Coast states know it's happening. Right, this is exactly my point. The founders sat around making high minded arguments that they were doing their absolute best to preserve the fundamental rights of the people. Except that in their minds, 'the people' was wealthy white land owners and that the entire constitution is rigged around the concept that wealthy white landowners are the ones the state exists to benefit. Recall that the original intent was that the senate would be appointed by the states legislatures and so was guaranteed to be other rich white landowners and had no popular vote aspect to it at all. So, what they are really doing here when limiting the presidents pardon powers in the event of a treason but still letting the rich white landowners decide if that person get still be president after a treason is really just saying, "As long as the treasonous behavior didn't try to take our wealth from us." Because that's the only real self-interest such a body would have.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 15:45
|
|
|
That's not fair at all. Poor and middle class white land owners also had interests guaranteed by the State.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:03
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Maybe not have rigged the senate so that it can be decided by a small minority of the very wealthy? Look the founders made many bad decisions I don't think they *could* have drafted a system robust enough to handle the current republican party without trauma, though. The issue isn't so much constitutional rule making as the existence of mass radicalizing media. Maybe if they had implemented a parliamentary system. Or if they had thought to put in antimonopoly rules from the start.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:14
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Maybe if they had implemented a parliamentary system. That wasn't enough to prevent the UK from falling into its similar, but different, dysfunction over the last decade or two, though.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 16:55
|
|
|
I don't think the UK Parliament of the eighteenth century is really comparable to what it is now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 17:26
|
|
|
Star Man posted:I don't think the UK Parliament of the eighteenth century is really comparable to what it is now. It was better. It all went downhill once they let the Irish in and only one person was mandated to wear a powdered wig instead of everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 17:28
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:That wasn't enough to prevent the UK from falling into its similar, but different, dysfunction over the last decade or two, though. Yeah, the root issue is that Murdoch exists. England's system is a little more robust but the root issue is total capture of the media by the right wing noise machine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 17:36
|
|
|
I remember one of the checks/balances described in the federalist papers was that the United States was simply too large of a region for the schemes of federal-level factions to be viable. Like it’s simply impractical for a conspiracy to coordinate when it takes days/weeks to travel or communicate between states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 17:53
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:It was better. It all went downhill once they let the Irish in and only one person was mandated to wear a powdered wig instead of everyone. As it always is and as it will always be. As Sigmund Freud once said: "(The Irish are) one race for whom psychoanalysis is of no use whatsoever..."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 17:55
|
|
|
Gyges posted:That's not fair at all. Poor and middle class white land owners also had interests guaranteed by the State. I think this falls under the "stability" part of the elite's interests.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:13
|
|
|
Should be getting the judges ruling in Colorado today at some point I believe.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:14
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Should be getting the judges ruling in Colorado today at some point I believe. Isn’t this again gonna come down to the fact that we’re talking about the primary and not the GE ballot? The GOP, as a private group, are allowed to nominate a treasonous, 6 year old Albanian if they want to and the government can only regulate the actual election not their nomination. They’re completely in their rights to nominate an ineligible candidate, it’s just not smart. Why won’t the judge kick this can down the road like in Michigan and Minnesota?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:22
|
|
|
Xiahou Dun posted:Isn’t this again gonna come down to the fact that we’re talking about the primary and not the GE ballot? The GOP, as a private group, are allowed to nominate a treasonous, 6 year old Albanian if they want to and the government can only regulate the actual election not their nomination. They’re completely in their rights to nominate an ineligible candidate, it’s just not smart. I think the difference here is that the Colorado constitution places a specific duty on the state to ensure that people on the ballot are eligible. So, if the judge rules that the 14th amendment applies but just not for the primary then it paves the way for Colorado to reject Trump the moment he accepts the nomination. It affirms the process and that it's applicable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
Murgos posted:Maybe not have rigged the senate so that it can be decided by a small minority of the very wealthy? That's kind of a non-sequitor, isn't it? Whether or not Congress impeaches a hypothetical criminal president doesn't necessarily have anything to do with what social or economic classes make up Congress. Certainly, the founders thought differently. But they were mostly concerned about the popular masses ushering in a criminal president while ignoring the elite decorum that would reject such a horrible scandal. And while I'm not saying they're right, the House GOP tends to be more pro-Trump than the Senate GOP. Ultimately, the social makeup of Congress doesn't affect the argument you're responding to: Hieronymous Alloy posted:End of the day there's no constitutional order that can survive a complicit desire to overthrow that order shared among all those who control all branches of government. If the president desires to pardon himself and congress and the courts allow it and the people do not revolt, what were words on paper supposed to do?
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/kyledcheney/status/1725609829513732313
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 22:46
|
|
|
Oh heavens, thank goodness they are protecting the identities of the traitors who stormed the capitol. Wouldn't want them to suffer reputational impacts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Oh heavens, thank goodness they are protecting the identities of the traitors who stormed the capitol. Wouldn't want them to suffer reputational impacts. Eh, I can see an argument for blurring the faces so nutjobs on the internet don't start harassing random people for looking sorta-kinda like "the guy in the background of this shot if you freeze on this specific frame of video".
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 23:34
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Eh, I can see an argument for blurring the faces so nutjobs on the internet don't start harassing random people for looking sorta-kinda like "the guy in the background of this shot if you freeze on this specific frame of video". I agree but at the same time I don't think that's why they're doing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 23:45
|
|
|
Randalor posted:Eh, I can see an argument for blurring the faces so nutjobs on the internet don't start harassing random people for looking sorta-kinda like "the guy in the background of this shot if you freeze on this specific frame of video". Especially if they are going the route of saying all of them were paid by the DNC to act like Trump supporters. "This one photo has been digitally enhanced and now we know that this person(who looks nothing like the actual person in real life) is actually a college leftist. Now we have proof this is all a conspiracy."
|
|
#
?
Nov 17, 2023 23:58
|
|
|
386-SX 25Mhz VGA posted:I remember one of the checks/balances described in the federalist papers was that the United States was simply too large of a region for the schemes of federal-level factions to be viable. Like it’s simply impractical for a conspiracy to coordinate when it takes days/weeks to travel or communicate between states.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 00:28
|
|
|
Georgia prosecutor in Trump election case proposes Aug. 5 trial datequote:Georgia prosecutor in Trump election case proposes Aug. 5 trial dateThe Georgia prosecutor leading the election-interference case against former president Donald Trump and 14 remaining co-defendants requested a trial date of Aug. 5, 2024, in a motion filed Friday afternoon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 01:12
|
|
|
Trump can run in Colorado. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/11/17/colorado-judge-rules-trump-engaged-in-insurrection-but-can-still-run-for-president-00127909 quote:Colorado judge rules Trump ‘engaged in an insurrection’ — but can still run for president
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 05:24
|
|
|
So yeah, he broke the law, was an insurrectionist, but hey, its Trump, so let him run! Amirite?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 06:02
|
|
|
The decision by the judge that he actually committed insurrection is going to have some effect on his pending, and future, legal matters.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 06:18
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So yeah, he broke the law, was an insurrectionist, but hey, its Trump, so let him run! Amirite? That's not what they said. PainterofCrap posted:The decision by the judge that he actually committed insurrection is going to have some effect on his pending, and future, legal matters. What legal matters do you expect it's going to affect and why would this ruling affect them?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 06:21
|
|
|
A judge has reviewed the evidence and determined that he was fomenting insurrection. That's not a fun factoid for the defense in the 1/6 trial at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 06:26
|
|
|
I cannot see how the ruling of a state judge in Colorado will be relevant to a federal proceeding out in DC or elsewhere other than as a non-binding supporting argument.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 06:41
|
|
|
PainterofCrap posted:A judge has reviewed the evidence and determined that he was fomenting insurrection. That's not a fun factoid for the defense in the 1/6 trial at all. It won't be anything in that trial because it's not evidence of anything
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 06:56
|
|
|
Fart Amplifier posted:It won't be anything in that trial because it's not evidence of anything It's at least a lede, innit?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 07:01
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:It's at least a lede, innit? It will probably not be mentioned during any criminal trial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 07:03
|
|
|
Uglycat posted:It's at least a lede, innit? That’s not how case law works in the United States at all.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 07:15
|
|
|
The decision was that the wording of the 14th Amendment made an oopsie and says that you're not allowed to hold office if you engaged in insurrection after taking an oath of office as a whole bunch of things, but that whole bunch of things forgot to include the presidency because the POTUS isn't an "officer."quote: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. So basically if he had held any other official position in his life he'd have been barred but because he's only ever been President it's fine. Yikes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 07:27
|
|
|
Cimber posted:So yeah, he broke the law, was an insurrectionist, but hey, its Trump, so let him run! Amirite? No, the judge ruled that the Insurrection Clause doesn't apply to the presidency at all, because it doesn't explicitly say that the president is covered, and the judge doesn't dare to disqualify a president without a clear text explicitly and unambiguously saying so. I'm not even playing it here. Direct quote straight from the ruling: quote:Part of the Court's decision is its reluctance to embrace an interpretation which would disqualify a presidential candidate without a clear, unmistakable indication that such is the intent of Section Three. It's a rather unusual ruling that seems to me like it was written with the intention of punting this up to the appeals courts. If the judge was confident that insurrection doesn't disqualify the president, there would have been no need to rule on whether Trump was an insurrectionist, since strictly speaking it's irrelevant to the ruling.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 07:41
|
|
|
Wait I thought the Colorado thing was only to determine if he could be in the GOP primary? Although I appreciate that the court feels that this is well above its pay grade, the idea that the President is not an officer of the United States seems so transparently absurd that I feel like I'm going (even more) insane. It is the office of the presidency. An officer is a person who holds a position of authority in a given organization. At no point does it carry connotations of any particular rank or subordination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 11:08
|
|
|
Ms Adequate posted:Wait I thought the Colorado thing was only to determine if he could be in the GOP primary? It’s actually not absurd at all. In unrelated contexts, such as federal rulemaking and supervision of agencies, it’s a noncontroversial element of the whole enterprise that POTUS is not an “officer” of the United States and rules that apply to officers don’t apply to her/him. This body of law isn’t directly applicable to the 14A question, but using a “lay” definition of the word “officer” doesn’t actually directly apply either. I’m not saying it’s an interpretation I endorse, but a reading that the political check of a President being elected nationally is a sufficient check, while Senators, Congresscritters, and inferior officers are all chosen by individual states or other local means and so are more susceptible to a treason-friendly subset of the US thus needing the explicit ban absolutely passes the small test. Jean-Paul Shartre fucked around with this message at 11:45 on Nov 18, 2023 |
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 11:38
|
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:The decision was that the wording of the 14th Amendment made an oopsie and says that you're not allowed to hold office if you engaged in insurrection after taking an oath of office as a whole bunch of things, but that whole bunch of things forgot to include the presidency because the POTUS isn't an "officer." If that's a correct interpretation of the Amendment I don't think it applies to the office of President at *all*?
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 11:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 16:06 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:
Right. No one is touching this without a clear understanding that whatever the result is, it’s getting appealed all the way until it hits the top. I’m sure CREW has spent the last year marshaling its arguments for this determination since it was one of the most apparent possible results and now it moves on up the ladder.
|
|
#
?
Nov 18, 2023 13:49
|
|