spaceghoti @ spaceghoti @lemmy.one

Posts

651

Comments

783

Joined

2 yr. ago

Moderating

---

They didn't? I mean, I guess not if you only watch Fox News.

They're also Christian. Everything they embrace can be found in the Bible in both Old Testament and New Testament.

There's the big one they put on display in the living room for guests to see how pious they are.

Yeah, that free market bullshit never actually works like people think it should.

People are working under wage slavery now. I think they've already considered strategies for getting people to work for them. Starving people will consider options they wouldn't accept otherwise.

Garrett Epps wrote a particularly thorough takedown on the notion that the Fourteenth Amendment wasn't intended to exclude insurrectionists from the office of the President of the United States.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2023/11/20/after-the-civil-war-robert-e-lee-couldnt-run-for-president-but-trump-can/

The head spins. To begin with, considerations of whether the president is an “officer of the United States” often cite provisions of the Constitution that differentiate between presidents and “officers,” as in Article II Section 2, which gives the president the power to appoint judges, ambassadors, and “all other Officers of the United States,” or the Impeachment Clause, which applies to “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States.” But they uniformly ignore the text where it undercuts that reading most clearly regarding the president: Article II Section 2, which provides a specific oath the president must take “before he enter on the execution of his office.” The Presidency is referred to as an “office” in Article I § 3 (twice), Article II § 1 (eight times), Amendment XII (once), Amendment XX (six times), and Amendment XXV (ten times). The great Shaker preacher Henry Clay Blinn is supposed to have remarked, “If you think that you can think about a thing, inextricably attached to something else, without thinking of the thing that it is attached to, then you have a legal mind.” I am ashamed to admit that lawyers’ mental training makes it possible, with some effort, to believe that the Constitution creates an office but does not create an “officer” to fill it; that is a discredit to legal education rather than a comment on proper semantics.

...

I spent five years studying the doings of the 39th Congress, and its major figures still have guest quarters in my head. Gentle reader, can you seriously imagine that our 19th-century ratifier—an informed, loyal American who had just lived through a brutal war that took more than 600,000 lives for the sole reason that Southern whites would not accept that Abraham Lincoln won the 1860 election—would have understood Section 3 to mean that a traitor couldn’t be a Senator, or a Representative, or a governor, or a state legislator, or for that matter a dog-catcher—but that Robert E. Frickin’ Lee could turn his coat one more time, swear he really would support the Constitution this time, and waltz into the White House?

Yes, you've already proven yourself. We know who you are now.

Congratulations for being honest enough to admit you're part of the problem. Russia is pleased with your work.

The dollar is based on confidence, like all money. That confidence is backed by the country's ability to deliver. When they take over the government's functions they can (if they choose) print their own script.

With the resources they command, money isn't the problem.

Reich lists the billionaire donors who are hoping to become the new feudal lords in the new American empire. It's not about states at that point. It's about oligarchy.

We're talking about the industrialists who oversee food, construction, and so forth. They control most of the wealth and wealth-generating resources.

They largely control the nation's resources. They can pay, the question is how many of our police and military forces are willing to sell their loyalty.

They think they control the police and military. The South thought they had the advantage as well. History is about to repeat itself.

Of course not. They know they have to destroy society as it is before they can rebuild it the way they want it. That's the point. That's why they've been working for seventy years to undermine confidence in the government, so they can justify tearing it down and replacing it with their own vision.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12115-011-9498-4

It's a bid to return to feudalism, where the strong rule over the weak. Instead of a nation of laws, we return to a nation of men who determine whom the law protects versus who the law binds. They've been working on this for generations, and they've never been closer to success.

So judges can't make bad rulings, even for good reasons? Interesting.

It suggests that every judge ruling on it is afraid for their life if they uphold the Constitution.

I don't know, the Constitution is pretty clear that Trump is disqualified by the factual finding that he instigated and supported an insurrection. Any appellate court that strikes it down is going to reveal itself to be severely partisan.

I believe the author is making a joke about law professors. A group of lawyers being compared to a murder of crows.

So I guess it's not a secret any longer?