4 ms·

> If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore. Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Con

by lapcat 1y ago

> If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore. Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally. > If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional. > or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time This is just hand-waving. > regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. How will it be legitimate at all? > I have very little faith in both the US and Europe. You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.

Telaneo 1y ago
What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional, and the bench is very stacked. He's already above the law. My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.
  - Telaneo 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States
    - lapcat 1y ago
      I am of course already aware of that case. If you have an argument to make, then make it; a bare link is not an argument. Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President. At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.
      - HaZeust 1y ago
        My brother in Christ, the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional, and that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution is at direct odds with a Supreme Court decision that the president has any form of immunity for any acts. See here: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: *but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*" [emphasis mine] Not to mention, the decision for ANY evidence that could discern an act from being official, unofficial or personal as being inadmissible in court, and that we simply have to take the Executive's word for whether an act was "official" or not, is such sovereign immunity that we might as well backtrack our historical roots. Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
        lapcat 1y ago
        > My brother in Christ I am not your brother in Christ. > the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional I wasn't defending the decision. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that I consider to be badly wrong. > Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of. It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about.

by lapcat 1y ago

Telaneo 1y ago

What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional, and the bench is very stacked. He's already above the law. My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.

lapcat 1y ago
> What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.
- Telaneo 1y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_v._United_States
  - lapcat 1y ago
    I am of course already aware of that case. If you have an argument to make, then make it; a bare link is not an argument. Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President. At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.
    - HaZeust 1y ago
      My brother in Christ, the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional, and that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution is at direct odds with a Supreme Court decision that the president has any form of immunity for any acts. See here: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: *but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*" [emphasis mine] Not to mention, the decision for ANY evidence that could discern an act from being official, unofficial or personal as being inadmissible in court, and that we simply have to take the Executive's word for whether an act was "official" or not, is such sovereign immunity that we might as well backtrack our historical roots. Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
      - lapcat 1y ago
        > My brother in Christ I am not your brother in Christ. > the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional I wasn't defending the decision. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that I consider to be badly wrong. > Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of. It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about.