4 ms·

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 di

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.
- HaZeust 1y ago
  >"I am not your brother in Christ." It's an expression lol >"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about." He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort. That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.
  - lapcat 1y ago
    > It's an expression lol I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve. > which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though. If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans. > there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office. > you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort A link is not a retort, valid or invalid. > you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.
    - HaZeust 1y ago
      >"I doubt they would, though." >"which nobody is going to accept" I respect your blind optimism. The rest is moot for a reply.
      - deleted 1y ago
        [deleted]

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.

HaZeust 1y ago
>"I am not your brother in Christ." It's an expression lol >"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about." He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort. That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.
- lapcat 1y ago
  > It's an expression lol I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve. > which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though. If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans. > there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office. > you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort A link is not a retort, valid or invalid. > you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.
  - HaZeust 1y ago
    >"I doubt they would, though." >"which nobody is going to accept" I respect your blind optimism. The rest is moot for a reply.
    - deleted 1y ago
      [deleted]