because they can be won. Some battles should be fought because the other side is so odious.

Some battles just simply NEED to be fought. And won. Like this, here, now.

This is so true. I hear some people say "This is not the US that I grew up in" like maga is something new and unprecedented.

Well, I grew up gay a half century ago in Amarillo Texas. Maga is absolutely the US I grew up in. And before that, there were the kkk and the know-nothings. The fight against authoritarianism is a never-ending fight. It is not something that can be swept under the rug, or ignored in the hope that it will go away.

I still can't find anything in the U.S. Constitution which grants such immunity.

It does explicity state otherwise:
Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7

gave them the lingo dressed up with the "Amicus curiae" name. Anything that civil and criminal law explicitly states gets a president "immunized" by "official acts." That lingo is at the evil heart of their corrupt ruling.

They also overrule the scientists consulted by the Executive branch in deciding who has broken rules and regulations.

This is a rogue, subversive Supremacist Court. It subverts the rule of law and democracy itself.

The republicons have been subverting the White Supremacist Court since Uncle Thomas' horseshit lie-filled steamrolled installation in 1990.

when Harris becomes president! motherfuckers.

Their "interpretation" will be based the same. I can here them now. "It's not a crime if a Republican President does it.

That would get Republikkkans on board in a hurry.

"I'm going to order the court in New York State to put Trump in prison for the rest of his miserable life."

"Good luck finding him. Ever since the shooting they've been sending out.a hologram to campaign for him. No one knows where he is."

There was no constitutional question nor any law passed by congress in question with respect to their ruling. Nothing in the constitution about any presidential immunity, no laws passed by congress about presidential immunity. They made it up out of whole cloth essentially amending or inserting an immunity clause into the constitution. Congress should just pass a resolution saying we don't recognize the Supreme Court''s ability to usurp Congress and the States power to amend the constitution.

Again, introducing amendments in its traditional method will not work, and will never work for many many generations. Even if it is meant as symbolic, symbolism does not bring TRUE action for real change. The only way is to elect pro Article V convention Democrats to their respective states houses. Even if it is a runaway, it is still real action taken.

Read the history of the 27th Amendment and try again.

Patience is just too thin.

was to note that the 27th Amendment attempt STARTED IN CONGRESS and needed the ratification of the states to finish.

The same with the ERA still trying to get states to finish ratifying (including with some trying to rescind the previous ratifications).

That is why I think it is dead on arrival. If I misunderstood you, please forgive me. It's just how I see it.

...Republicans don't want a Democrat with the power of a king either.

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2024, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I hope she uses it to its fullest extent from Trump all the way down to his last voter.

and regardless of how it is started, it still requires 3/4 of states to ratify.

But initiating it in Congress at least doesn't require the states to "organically" think about starting up a pile of conventions and puts the idea out there as a heads-up about apparent interest in making a change. This then gives the states an opportunity to consider taking the lead using the alternative method instead (particularly if they agree with the Amendment language that Congress might come up with and adopts that for their conventions).

It take 2/3s or 34 states to activate a convention. Right now 19 states have officially signed on with 29 others currently in consideration with some made it passed one chamber. The red states are only there to pass the Balanced Budget amendment. At this stage of the game, we have a better chance at getting a convention than introducing amendments through federal legislative means (I call it the more traditional way) as both houses are split and unable to come to consensus.

that right now, you have this worse reality -



And for Governors -



So doing it the "state way" bumps right into the the fact that the GOP controls far more state legislatures (both chambers) than Democrats.

(ETA - and THAT was why one of the 45 2020 coup plans was to "throw the decision for the electoral college 'back to the states'" because they had legislative control over a majority of them at the time, including some like PA, GA, AZ, MI, and WI that voted for Biden)