The Constitution at fault or what?

[Thailand]

...

[thaicurious]

Would the Constitution be at fault to allow a criminal candidate had during the prior administration the MAGA Republicans somehow captured all three branches and criminalized prior to a following election all Democrats?

 

The Constitution rightfully allows (barring a 2/3rds vote of Congress, I believe it is, would have to google) stopping an insurrectionist who'd previously held office & vowed to support the Constitution from running again. This is entirely in line also with another founding document, to be celebrated in 2026 for its Semiquincentennial, the Declaration of Independence which cites as reason for independence insurrections incited by monarch.

[retarius]

So it is not against the Constitution for DJT to run and become president and it was foreseen by the founding fathers that this might happen? I'm only guessing mind since justice in America "is a game" (said Bob Dylan, but it would seem that if the SCOTUS is bound to uphold the Constitution then they should let DJT run without any undue hindrance from politically motivated law suits eg corrupt Fani's suit. 

I hope this is true, for many reasons, and hope it happens soon. I suspect the SCOTUS will be 6-3 on the issue, for DJT running, unsurprisingly. The main reason though is that America will hasten rapidly on its downhill path in a very ugly mood if DJT is prohibited from campaigning and running in the presidential race. The nation is split, pretty much evenly and there are millions of Trump supporters who will be both armed and very unhappy. I'm really glad I left the US all those years ago....it has become a really ugly place. 

[retarius]

4 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Would the Constitution be at fault to allow a criminal candidate had during the prior administration the MAGA Republicans somehow captured all three branches and criminalized prior to a following election all Democrats?

 

The Constitution rightfully allows (barring a 2/3rds vote of Congress, I believe it is, would have to google) stopping an insurrectionist who'd previously held office & vowed to support the Constitution from running again. This is entirely in line also with another founding document, to be celebrated in 2026 for its Semiquincentennial, the Declaration of Independence which cites as reason for independence insurrections incited by monarch.

Do you think 2/3 of the Congress would vote for disbarring DJT? I don't, somehow.

[thaicurious]

11 minutes ago, retarius said:

So it is not against the Constitution for DJT to run and become president and it was foreseen by the founding fathers that this might happen? I'm only guessing mind since justice in America "is a game" (said Bob Dylan, but it would seem that if the SCOTUS is bound to uphold the Constitution then they should let DJT run without any undue hindrance from politically motivated law suits eg corrupt Fani's suit. 

I hope this is true, for many reasons, and hope it happens soon. I suspect the SCOTUS will be 6-3 on the issue, for DJT running, unsurprisingly. The main reason though is that America will hasten rapidly on its downhill path in a very ugly mood if DJT is prohibited from campaigning and running in the presidential race. The nation is split, pretty much evenly and there are millions of Trump supporters who will be both armed and very unhappy. I'm really glad I left the US all those years ago....it has become a really ugly place. 

 

Even if Fani Willis' personal relationship was handled inappropriately to her position (& I think she should step down), that has nothing to do with Georgia's rightful charges against Trump's criminal attempt to steal an election by dishing up a fake slate of electors and pressuring officials to "find enough votes". Any inappropriate behavior by her does not redeem his criminality.

 

Orange supporters who use firearms in the breaking of laws will be jailed or killed. The United States of America, though a flawed democracy, is still more of a democracy than Thailand, by far.

 

Meanwhile, by his actions and his failures to act, Trump did indeed support insurrection against the United States of American. Any common sense reading and certainly any reading by a SCOTUS Federalist Society Justice (aka those appointed by Trump) ought read the Constitution itself denies Trump candidacy for the presidency.

 

10 minutes ago, retarius said:

Do you think 2/3 of the Congress would vote for disbarring DJT? I don't, somehow.

 

You might have misread what I'd written above. By allowing, I mean that the Constitution allows by 2/3 vote to stop the prevention of his running for office, not the other way around as you seem to have taken it. The Constitution does not call for a 2/3 vote to bar him based on his insurrection from running. It allows for a 2/3 vote that would allow him to run, should SCOTUS rule in favor of their own originalist view of how to read the Constitution.

[novacova]

10 minutes ago, thaicurious said:

Orange supporters who use firearms in the breaking of laws will be jailed or killed. The United States of America, though a flawed democracy,

Nothing flawed about the document of the US constitution, unlike those that support the Demented potus. Most people in the world, including US citizens don’t understand and lack the will to comprehend the US constitution.

[ozimoron]

4 minutes ago, novacova said:

Nothing flawed about the document of the US constitution, unlike those that support the Demented potus. Most people in the world, including US citizens don’t understand and lack the will to comprehend the US constitution.

 

People understand the constitution perfectly. They also understand that the only democratic way to elect a president is one man one vote. A continuation or worsening of the trend toward election of presidents (always republican) with a minority of the popular vote can't last without severe repercussions.

 

Standard civics-class accounts of the Electoral College rarely mention the real demon dooming direct national election in 1787 and 1803: slavery.

 

If the system’s pro-slavery tilt was not overwhelmingly obvious when the Constitution was ratified, it quickly became so. For 32 of the Constitution’s first 36 years, a white slaveholding Virginian occupied the presidency.

 

https://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

[thaicurious]

12 minutes ago, novacova said:

Nothing flawed about the document of the US constitution, unlike those that support the Demented potus. Most people in the world, including US citizens don’t understand and lack the will to comprehend the US constitution.

 

 

https://www.aclu.org/documents/bill-rights-brief-history#:~:text=The Constitution was remarkable%2C but,did not apply to everyone.

"The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration – or bill – of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The “consent of the governed” meant propertied white men only.

 

The absence of a “bill of rights” turned out to be an obstacle to the Constitution’s ratification by the states. It would take four more years of intense debate before the new government’s form would be resolved. The Federalists opposed including a bill of rights on the ground that it was unnecessary. The Anti-Federalists, who were afraid of a strong centralized government, refused to support the Constitution without one.

 

In the end, popular sentiment was decisive. Recently freed from the despotic English monarchy, the American people wanted strong guarantees that the new government would not trample upon their newly won freedoms of speech, press and religion, nor upon their right to be free from warrantless searches and seizures. So, the Constitution’s framers heeded Thomas Jefferson who argued: “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inference.”

 

The American Bill of Rights, inspired by Jefferson and drafted by James Madison, was adopted, and in 1791 the Constitution’s first ten amendments became the law of the land."

[OneMoreFarang]

There was a time when nobody would have voted for such a person.

Times have changed in America, the land of the free and all that.

[Chris Daley]

His resume says ''starred in Home Alone'' and then he became president.  The man is a turd and has no place in politics.

[retarius]

 

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

 

Even if Fani Willis' personal relationship was handled inappropriately to her position (& I think she should step down), that has nothing to do with Georgia's rightful charges against Trump's criminal attempt to steal an election by dishing up a fake slate of electors and pressuring officials to "find enough votes". Any inappropriate behavior by her does not redeem his criminality.

 

 United States of America, though a flawed democracy, is still more of a democracy than Thailand, by far.

 

Meanwhile, by his actions and his failures to act, Trump did indeed support insurrection against the United States of American. Any common sense reading and certainly any reading by a SCOTUS Federalist Society Justice (aka those appointed by Trump) ought read the Constitution itself denies Trump candidacy for the presidency.

 

 

You might have misread what I'd written above. By allowing, I mean that the Constitution allows by 2/3 vote to stop the prevention of his running for office, not the other way around as you seem to have taken it. The Constitution does not call for a 2/3 vote to bar him based on his insurrection from running. It allows for a 2/3 vote that would allow him to run, should SCOTUS rule in favor of their own originalist view of how to read the Constitution.

I think you have misunderstood my words. My reference to angry, armed Trump supporters made no mention of them being successful, the US is a police state after all. I implied, merely, that having armed, angry people around does not make for pleasant living, which is why I said that I was glad I left the place all those years ago. 

[retarius]

2 hours ago, thaicurious said:

Orange supporters who use firearms in the breaking of laws will be jailed or killed. The United States of America, though a flawed democracy, is still more of a democracy than Thailand, by far.

 

Thailand and the US have voting but neither is any recognisable democracy. I don't see that two non democratic states can be compared as to which is closest to democracy. Democracy in the west as a rule, has been hijacked by the elites as it has in Thailand. Thailand is merely more a more overt corruption of democracy that the faux democracies in US and Europe where the corruption is hidden. In the US the same result has been achieved by giving no choice to voters, the uni party decides everything whatever way you vote.  

[Nick Carter icp]

9 minutes ago, retarius said:

Thailand and the US have voting but neither is any recognisable democracy. I don't see that two non democratic states can be compared as to which is closest to democracy. Democracy in the west as a rule, has been hijacked by the elites as it has in Thailand. Thailand is merely more a more overt corruption of democracy that the faux democracies in US and Europe where the corruption is hidden. In the US the same result has been achieved by giving no choice to voters, the uni party decides everything whatever way you vote.  

 

   Are you getting China and the USA mixed up ?

[retarius]

5 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

 

   Are you getting China and the USA mixed up ?

No

[Nick Carter icp]

1 minute ago, retarius said:

No

 

  Who decides who the American public will vote for ?

[jaywalker2]

9 hours ago, retarius said:

So it is not against the Constitution for DJT to run and become president and it was foreseen by the founding fathers that this might happen? I'm only guessing mind since justice in America "is a game" (said Bob Dylan, but it would seem that if the SCOTUS is bound to uphold the Constitution then they should let DJT run without any undue hindrance from politically motivated law suits eg corrupt Fani's suit. 

I hope this is true, for many reasons, and hope it happens soon. I suspect the SCOTUS will be 6-3 on the issue, for DJT running, unsurprisingly. The main reason though is that America will hasten rapidly on its downhill path in a very ugly mood if DJT is prohibited from campaigning and running in the presidential race. The nation is split, pretty much evenly and there are millions of Trump supporters who will be both armed and very unhappy. I'm really glad I left the US all those years ago....it has become a really ugly place. 

What he's saying is that the Constitution allows for the banning from political office of anyone who has been involved in insurrection. Colorado has already ruled to keep Trump off the ballot but has stayed the ruling until the Supreme Court rules. The issue isn't whether the Constitution permits this but whether Trump actually engaged insurrection since he hasn't been convicted of anything yet.

[thaicurious]

6 hours ago, retarius said:

 

I think you have misunderstood my words. My reference to angry, armed Trump supporters made no mention of them being successful, the US is a police state after all. I implied, merely, that having armed, angry people around does not make for pleasant living, which is why I said that I was glad I left the place all those years ago. 

 

I did not misunderstand your own misunderstandings. I do indeed understand your desire to rationalize having left the USA, whether you did so as a matter of finance (good to have options) or attraction to Thai Buddhist culture (that I've long loved--though not crazy about its animism which I can find at least amusing) or fetishizing cheap sex or enjoying easily available street food or whatever your initial motivation, even to step away from problems you found yourself unable to detach from in the homeland you were born to in favor of living within the problems of a different society about which you might feel by not being born there freer to ignore. Whether be your physical ability or psychological inability to step away from an issue does not change the facts of the issue. Nor does you inability or refusal to detach personally affect actual social remedy (life goes on).

 

Meanwhile, policing does not make a police state. A police state would be the totalitarianism of authoritarianism which is what the MAGA Republicans and Trump show they want in their efforts from policing women's bodies to library books. They are despicable and hopefully they will be voted out, just like Trump was voted out at his & his ilk's last attempt to illegally grab power.

 

Rather, the United States of America is a constitutional state, Trump's stated authoritarian desire for “the termination of all rules ... even those found in the Constitution” not withstanding.

 

https://www.senate.gov/about/origins-foundations/senate-and-constitution/constitution.htm

:Written in 1787, ratified in 1788, and in operation since 1789, the United States Constitution is the world’s longest surviving written charter of government. Its first three words – “We The People” – affirm that the government of the United States exists to serve its citizens. The supremacy of the people through their elected representatives is recognized in Article I, which creates a Congress consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives. The positioning of Congress at the beginning of the Constitution affirms its status as the “First Branch” of the federal government.

 

The Constitution assigned to Congress responsibility for organizing the executive and judicial branches, raising revenue, declaring war, and making all laws necessary for executing these powers. The president is permitted to veto specific legislative acts, but Congress has the authority to override presidential vetoes by two-thirds majorities of both houses. The Constitution also provides that the Senate advise and consent on key executive and judicial appointments and on the approval for ratification of treaties.

 

For over two centuries the Constitution has remained in force because its framers successfully separated and balanced governmental powers to safeguard the interests of majority rule and minority rights, of liberty and equality, and of the federal and state governments. More a concise statement of national principles than a detailed plan of governmental operation, the Constitution has evolved to meet the changing needs of a modern society profoundly different from the eighteenth-century world in which its creators lived. To date, the Constitution has been amended 27 times, most recently in 1992. The first ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights."

 

6 hours ago, retarius said:

Thailand and the US have voting but neither is any recognisable democracy. I don't see that two non democratic states can be compared as to which is closest to democracy. Democracy in the west as a rule, has been hijacked by the elites as it has in Thailand. Thailand is merely more a more overt corruption of democracy that the faux democracies in US and Europe where the corruption is hidden. In the US the same result has been achieved by giving no choice to voters, the uni party decides everything whatever way you vote.  

 

There actually are objective measures of democracy....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index

"The Democracy Index published by the Economist Group is an index measuring the quality of democracy across the world. This quantitative and comparative assessment is centrally concerned with democratic rights and democratic institutions....

 

The index is based on 60 indicators grouped into five categories, measuring pluralism, civil liberties, and political culture. In addition to a numeric score and a ranking, the index categorizes each country into one of four regime types: full democracies, flawed democracies, hybrid regimes, and authoritarian regimes."

[impulse]

On 1/21/2024 at 2:52 PM, thaicurious said:

Even if Fani Willis' personal relationship was handled inappropriately to her position (& I think she should step down), that has nothing to do with Georgia's rightful charges against Trump's criminal attempt to steal an election by dishing up a fake slate of electors and pressuring officials to "find enough votes". Any inappropriate behavior by her does not redeem his criminality.

 

In December, 2020, Texas filed a Bill of Complaint at the Supreme Court to nullify the electoral votes of 4 swing states because of irregularities in the way the votes were collected and counted.

 

126 congressmen filed an amicus brief supporting the Texas complaint.

 

17 other states filed amicus briefs supporting the Texas complaint, which required hundreds of state politicians to approve the briefs.

 

The Texas complaint listed a few dozen of the irregularities and it’s worth a read, as are the amicus briefs files by 126 congressmen and 17 states. 

 

TX vs Supreme Court filing.pdfTexas vs Amicus.pdf

 

Contrary to the prevailing narrative that the Texas complaints were baseless and therefore "debunked", the Supreme Court simply refused to take up the case, claiming only that Texas had no standing.  They specifically noted that they did not consider the facts of the case.

 

So the idea that Trump, out of the blue and of his own accord, decided to “steal an election” is ludicrous at best.   As is the idea that he was the first candidate to ever propose alternate electors in case the courts found that some of the votes were illegally cast.   Of course, if you choose a blue enough venue and a TDS AG, you could convict him of using too much product in his hair...

 

Hundreds of other elected officials agreed that the election was flawed.   And to this day, there are cases winding through the courts, many of which have found that there were illegalities.  Too late, of course, for the 2020 election. 

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/

[placeholder]

On 1/22/2024 at 6:22 PM, impulse said:

 

In December, 2020, Texas filed a Bill of Complaint at the Supreme Court to nullify the electoral votes of 4 swing states because of irregularities in the way the votes were collected and counted.

 

126 congressmen filed an amicus brief supporting the Texas complaint.

 

17 other states filed amicus briefs supporting the Texas complaint, which required hundreds of state politicians to approve the briefs.

 

The Texas complaint listed a few dozen of the irregularities and it’s worth a read, as are the amicus briefs files by 126 congressmen and 17 states. 

 

TX vs Supreme Court filing.pdf 784.61 kB · 0 downloads Texas vs Amicus.pdf 1.09 MB · 0 downloads

 

Contrary to the prevailing narrative that the Texas complaints were baseless and therefore "debunked", the Supreme Court simply refused to take up the case, claiming only that Texas had no standing.  They specifically noted that they did not consider the facts of the case.

 

So the idea that Trump, out of the blue and of his own accord, decided to “steal an election” is ludicrous at best.   As is the idea that he was the first candidate to ever propose alternate electors in case the courts found that some of the votes were illegally cast.   Of course, if you choose a blue enough venue and a TDS AG, you could convict him of using too much product in his hair...

 

Hundreds of other elected officials agreed that the election was flawed.   And to this day, there are cases winding through the courts, many of which have found that there were illegalities.  Too late, of course, for the 2020 election. 

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/

As has repeatedly been pointed out and to no avail with some, Trump's reelection committee hired 2 teams of forensic experts to find fraud in the 2020 elections, They found nothing that could have changed the final outcome.

[KhunLA]

Christians believe in forgiveness (not forgetting), and everyone deserves a second chance in life.  

 

If all else fails ... there a 2nd Amendment for reason 

[sirineou]

On 1/21/2024 at 1:13 PM, retarius said:

I hope this is true, for many reasons, and hope it happens soon. I suspect the SCOTUS will be 6-3 on the issue, for DJT running, unsurprisingly.

As much as dislike trump and nothing would make me happier  if tomorrow morning's' news announced that he died. 

I hope they allow him to run. 

If he runs, he will lost !! Te lost the popular vote  last time he run and only won because of the electoral college.  Now e had a disterouse one term by him, he is showing a lot less support among republicans and independents that he did in 2016, and is facing several indictments. . 

Biden will wipe the floor with him.  

He is a flawed candidate .But if he is not allowed to run,  then we will get a more viable candidate against Biden, who also has some negatives, and there would be a good chance to see a president  Haley.

If the supreme court disqualifies him, it will give him new life. He will claim that this election was stolen from him also, and we will never hear the end of it for another four years. 

  Let the voters remove him. 

 

 

 

[retarius]

2 hours ago, sirineou said:

As much as dislike trump and nothing would make me happier  if tomorrow morning's' news announced that he died. 

I hope they allow him to run. 

If he runs, he will lost !! Te lost the popular vote  last time he run and only won because of the electoral college.  Now e had a disterouse one term by him, he is showing a lot less support among republicans and independents that he did in 2016, and is facing several indictments. . 

Biden will wipe the floor with him.  

He is a flawed candidate .But if he is not allowed to run,  then we will get a more viable candidate against Biden, who also has some negatives, and there would be a good chance to see a president  Haley.

If the supreme court disqualifies him, it will give him new life. He will claim that this election was stolen from him also, and we will never hear the end of it for another four years. 

  Let the voters remove him. 

 

 

 

I don't have much skin in the game TBH. I just wish the US constitution would give us candidates that weren't senile and/or corrupt, like Biden and Trump. There may a serious fault with the Constitution that it  vomits up these vile candidates instead of decent people these days, and the last 2 elections (and possibly the one in 2024) have all been between unsuitable candidates.

I can't see the SCOTUS disqualifying Trump. Nor can  I see there Senate impeaching Biden. The single party system where two parties squabble over minor issues to differentiate themselves has become a farce. The US is not a democracy, not has it been one for a long, long time. It is time for a rethink, which is the appeal of Trump, he might do something unpredictable but he didn't do it last time. I favour him because of his stance on not starting any new wars and genuinely trying to make peace in the conflicts that exist, although I doubt his grandiose claims, and like the famed Abraham Accords of his last administration were highly biased against the Palestinians. His 'easy to win' trade war with China wasn't won either. Biden on the other hand will raise the risk of WW3 as he caves to the Pentagon and MIC at every turn. Putin claimed the other day that the Patriot missile battery that shot the POW plane down had US staffers manning the battery. If true, this is casus bellum and the start of WW3 if Putin backs up the claim and pursues it to its logical conclusion. 

[KhunLA]

39 minutes ago, retarius said:

I don't have much skin in the game TBH. I just wish the US constitution would give us candidates that weren't senile and/or corrupt, like Biden and Trump. There may a serious fault with the Constitution that it  vomits up these vile candidates instead of decent people these days, and the last 2 elections (and possibly the one in 2024) have all been between unsuitable candidates.

No person intelligent enough to be President would want to take the pay cut, not matter how much he/she/it loves their country.  Aside from your invasion of privacy the rest of your life.

 

A job perfectly suited for narcissist and or criminals, as that seems to be the only qualifications needed.

[sirineou]

59 minutes ago, retarius said:

I don't have much skin in the game TBH. I just wish the US constitution would give us candidates that weren't senile and/or corrupt, like Biden and Trump.

Iy is not the constitution that gives' us undesirable candidate. We give our seves those people. it us who boy the BS they sell.

Buch like the narrative the other side is trying to create. with some success, that Biden is senile, just because he is older. Warren Buffet is 10 years older than Biden , and no one will say that he is senile. 

You might say it, not the age, but what he does. So what did he really do? maybe a few senior moments. Who among us of certain age don't have them. How many times I have walked into a room and forgot why I went there. Am I senile? 

For sure old age causes some decline, but at the same time  , more than makes up for by life long experience and wisdom.

1 hour ago, retarius said:

The single party system where two parties squabble over minor issues to differentiate themselves has become a farce.

 here is only one party, the sooner people realize this the better. 

There is the property party. with a progressive wing we call democrats, and a conservative wing we call republicans. Unfortunately unlike the parliamentary system, we have a zero sum system, with a winner takes all, and loose goes home, and such system can not tolerate more than two contenders. 

A third party will take votes away from from the candidate that is closer in ideology to it, and insure the election of the antithesis.  It's not like our system will change, so I am afraid we are screwed. 

 

[heybruce]

On 1/22/2024 at 6:22 AM, impulse said:

 

In December, 2020, Texas filed a Bill of Complaint at the Supreme Court to nullify the electoral votes of 4 swing states because of irregularities in the way the votes were collected and counted.

 

126 congressmen filed an amicus brief supporting the Texas complaint.

 

17 other states filed amicus briefs supporting the Texas complaint, which required hundreds of state politicians to approve the briefs.

 

The Texas complaint listed a few dozen of the irregularities and it’s worth a read, as are the amicus briefs files by 126 congressmen and 17 states. 

 

TX vs Supreme Court filing.pdf 784.61 kB · 0 downloads Texas vs Amicus.pdf 1.09 MB · 0 downloads

 

Contrary to the prevailing narrative that the Texas complaints were baseless and therefore "debunked", the Supreme Court simply refused to take up the case, claiming only that Texas had no standing.  They specifically noted that they did not consider the facts of the case.

 

So the idea that Trump, out of the blue and of his own accord, decided to “steal an election” is ludicrous at best.   As is the idea that he was the first candidate to ever propose alternate electors in case the courts found that some of the votes were illegally cast.   Of course, if you choose a blue enough venue and a TDS AG, you could convict him of using too much product in his hair...

 

Hundreds of other elected officials agreed that the election was flawed.   And to this day, there are cases winding through the courts, many of which have found that there were illegalities.  Too late, of course, for the 2020 election. 

 

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/texas-v-pennsylvania/

"The Texas complaint listed a few dozen of the irregularities and it’s worth a read, as are the amicus briefs files by 126 congressmen and 17 states. "

 

Why don't you quote one or two passages that give credible evidence of "irregularities" of a nature that could have influenced the outcome of the election?

 

"So the idea that Trump, out of the blue and of his own accord, decided to “steal an election” is ludicrous at best."

 

The idea that anyone of consequence would be promoting the stolen election lie if Trump were not promoting it is ludicrous at best.

[Amethyst]

This is a political topic, which is not allowed in this forum per its local forum rules. Therefore, this topic is CLOSED. //

 

US & Canada Topics and Events

For topics and events related to the US and Canada. Political news topics are not permitted.