Rivalarrival @ Rivalarrival @lemmy.today

Posts

1

Comments

3,264

Joined

2 yr. ago

Of course I know that. I can't control whether Trump follows the constitution. I can't control whether you follow the constitution. I can only control my own actions. And as of 20 January 2029, Trump is no longer president.

If you're going to claim otherwise, you do so at your own peril.

Do you think the Constitution is a magical, sentient, self-enforcing entity? If the people entrusted with enforcing the Constitution are unable or unwilling to do so, the Constitution is just a really old piece of paper.

The "people entrusted with enforcing the Constitution" are "We The People", and We The People are, indeed, following it. The Constitution tells us that Trump is currently president; we are allowing it.

Every institution that people said would hold the line against this kind of autocratic takeover has opted to roll over and play dead instead. follow the Constitution.

FTFY. We are all currently allowing Trump to be president because the Constitution says he is. That stops being true on 20 January, 2029.

All the blue states will be in open revolt by then.

The only reason they aren't now is because they are following the Constitution, even if the Donvict won't.

It's not being ignored, at least not by the people who actually matter: We The People.

The constitution tells us that he's currently the president. We are following the constitution.

When the constitution tells us someone else is president, we'll follow that, too.

At that point, the Constitution is no longer valid, and we've entered into a second civil war between everyone who understands the phrase "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice," and everyone who does not.

Without a constitutional amendment, it's not going to happen. Even the secret service will intervene, following the orders of the legitimate president over Trump.

Even if there is no election, the 25th amendment continues to operate, and there is still a valid line of succession. Trump's and Vance's terms end in January, 2029. Trump is out.

Without an election, all House seats would be vacant, so there would be no Speaker. The line then goes to the President pro tempore of the Senate. Since only 1/3 of Senate terms expire in any election year, there is still a functioning Senate. It can select a "President pro tempore of the Senate", who is 4th in line for the Presidency.

If there is an Electoral College, its votes cannot be certified by a non-existent House of Representatives, which means a president cannot be selected. However, the Senate certifies the EC votes for the Vice President, and/or selects the Vice President if the votes cannot be certified for some reason.

With either the senate-selected Vice President, or the senate-selected President pro tempore of the Senate, there will be a non-Trump president in the White House in January, 2029.

Best I can do is a Central American shooting war.

If the masses get violent enough to declare martial law, martial law ain't gonna save the declarer.

You can't get a balloon pilot's license without a formal diagnosis. :)

He thinks Europe and the rest of NATO is a bunch of freeloaders, living under (expensive) security provided by the US. All the Canada/Greenland talk is bluster to get Europe to spend money on their own military.

The scary shit is the Birthright Citizenship stuff, and he doesn't even actually care about either "birthright" or "citizenship". What he cares about is the 14th amendment phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".

The kind of people who are not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the US are agents of a foreign government. Generally, we think "diplomat", but the other major group is "enemy combatants". Enemy invaders are not subject to US law, and are not entitled to constitutional protections. They can be targeted by the military. If captured, they can be detained indefinitely (until the conclusion of never-ending hostilities) as POWs, or deported without involving the courts.

He wants to solve the immigration problem with Apache gunships, B-52s, Abrams tanks, and the 82nd airborne, rather than ICE and the courts. If he needs a war to do that, a war we shall have.

Yeah?

Check out the rest of the comments in this thread. Getting a lot of insightful and innovative policy discourse from your post?

If you care about policy, you'll avoid any mention of that person in the future. As soon as her name is mentioned, the policy conversation ends.

Again, I don't much care for her,

Who do you care for? Let's spend a little more time on people who actually matter.

I don't see SCOTUS allowing this in this context, but they will reaffirm that it is valid during wartime.

Which just means we're going to be in a shooting war in Central America by summer.

She has been a major player in the party since the 90s. She is, indeed, largely responsible for the current state of the party.

Hot air balloon pilot here: We do, indeed.

This is a "Cloudhopper". It's a hot air balloon with no basket: The pilot straps a propane tank to his back and wears a climbing harness. As you can see, the pilot is, effectively, walking on water with the assistance of the balloon.

Cloudhoppers are about 20,000 to 35,000 cubic feet, 40-50 feet in diameter. They are about 1/3 to 1/2 the size of most of the balloons you might see at a fair or festival.

Shooting the messenger is not strategically sound.

She's not the messenger. She is the speaker. Here, she is attempting to exert her own brand of political influence.

Her political influence is largely responsible for the sorry state of the Democratic party today.

Whatever message needs to be sent, someone else can send it.

Go be irrelevant somewhere else, Hillary.

The reverse, probably: You should probably increase your contribution.

Consider the state of the market "now". Consider the state of the market "later", meaning some hypothetical time between now and your eventual retirement.

If the market is low "now", and you think it will be high "later", you should be buying now.

That's the whole debate though. What is your responsibility as a citizen?

The only responsibilities on the individual that are prescribed by the constitution arise under the Sixth Amendment, and Article I, Section 8 parts 15 and 16: the Militia clauses.

You have no other constitutional responsibilities as a citizen.

A legislated law obligating you to apply legislated law in judging the accused would violate the accused's 6th amendment right to a trial by a jury of his peers. Such a law would make you an agent of the government, not a layperson juror. The legislature can compel you to report for jury service; the legislature cannot impose any sort of responsibility to render a particular verdict.

You have no (relevant) legislative-law responsibilities as a citizen.

I'm so weary of talking about it ad-nauseam.

You have yet to talk about the most important part of the constitution. The first three words. You've completely ignored them all this time. Either you don't understand them, or you think they are irrelevant. They are the sine qua non of this issue. Ultimately, those three words rebut every single point against nullification you have made, every ad-nauseating time you have made them.

Ultimately these questions about jury nullification are irrelevant because you'll never have 12 jurors who think subverting the court process can achieve justice.

Injustice requires a unanimous verdict. The accused doesn't need 12 for the trial to reach a just end. He only needs one. A hung jury is always a just jury.

I believe they got a fine for it.

They should be put up against a wall for it.