Maybe I’m cynical, but i don’t see ‘we the people’ having any impact on what your chosen leader does. They gave him
immunity. He can and will do whatever he wants and you can just suck it up. He might decide that white women are garbage just like the haitian, somali, pakistani, etc etc etc people are. I mean he’s already gone after MTG with death threats.
They didn’t “give him immunity” in that sense. He still can’t just rewrite the Constitution all by himself. What they gave him…and every other president, both past and future…was something they already had. The authority to issue orders that other people would not have the legal right to give.
All the way back through history, presidents have made decisions that would, or should be considered “illegal” if anyone else had made them. They’ve engaged in wars with questionable motives, supplied weapons to enemies of the US, ordered the extrajudicial killings of individuals deemed a danger to the country, etc. If every president was immediately answerable to the legality of their decisions, they would not be able to act in a decisive way. So, the Supreme Court both retroactively and proactively granted the office of the president the legal authority to act without fear of prosecution.
But that does not give him the authority to simply “do whatever he wants”. It gives him a certain amount of leeway, when performing his Constitutional duties…but it doesn’t give him free reign to just violate the law itself. He still has to be acting within the official capacity that the office allows.
In this case, that authority is granted through the Constitution. If it’s written in there, it counts. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t. Meaning, he can’t just rewrite the Constitution, because the Constitution is very clear that he does not have the authority to do that. Neither does the judiciary.
The Constitution can only be amended by a supermajority in both the House and Senate, or by a National Convention. That’s how the system is set up.
For a counterpoint, see the 14th Amendment Section 3:
No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
This orange piece of shit president we have isn’t qualified under The Constitution to hold office. I wish people would understand how irrelevant The Constitution has become over the past decade.
Yeah. Except in that case, they forgot to actually define how to determine when someone has committed insurrection. It seemed pretty obvious at the time…all you needed to know was whether or not the person served in the Confederate army.
So, they left out any real definition beyond that. It isn’t even included in the US criminal code, so you can’t actually charge someone with that particular crime. Which makes that entire amendment, completely useless beyond its application to Confederate soldiers.
Attacking the power transfer is pretty obviously sedition. Courts can declare it and Colorado’s courts did. Then SCOTUS lied and said only congress can
Again, the Constitution itself isn’t clear who decides that…which is why it fell to Congress. They can pass legislation that codifies it in the Criminal Code, or simply vote on it, directly. But simply declaring someone guilty of “sedition” without a trial or clear language defining it, then it isn’t “obvious”.
Constitution only means something if people agree it means something and follow it. It’s a social construct. For example the usa constitution means nothing to other countries, because they choose it not to be anything. USA decided not to follow british rules. Hence the british rules are worthless in USA.
This argument is just one of definitions. One of you is talking about practical authority and the other is talking about theoretical authority under a given system of rules.
The rules of chess say a bishop only moves diagonally, but if the person you’re playing against pulls a gun on you and says they’ll move it wherever they want, it doesn’t do much good to say “but you can’t do that”.
We, the people.
Maybe I’m cynical, but i don’t see ‘we the people’ having any impact on what your chosen leader does. They gave him immunity. He can and will do whatever he wants and you can just suck it up. He might decide that white women are garbage just like the haitian, somali, pakistani, etc etc etc people are. I mean he’s already gone after MTG with death threats.
They didn’t “give him immunity” in that sense. He still can’t just rewrite the Constitution all by himself. What they gave him…and every other president, both past and future…was something they already had. The authority to issue orders that other people would not have the legal right to give.
All the way back through history, presidents have made decisions that would, or should be considered “illegal” if anyone else had made them. They’ve engaged in wars with questionable motives, supplied weapons to enemies of the US, ordered the extrajudicial killings of individuals deemed a danger to the country, etc. If every president was immediately answerable to the legality of their decisions, they would not be able to act in a decisive way. So, the Supreme Court both retroactively and proactively granted the office of the president the legal authority to act without fear of prosecution.
But that does not give him the authority to simply “do whatever he wants”. It gives him a certain amount of leeway, when performing his Constitutional duties…but it doesn’t give him free reign to just violate the law itself. He still has to be acting within the official capacity that the office allows.
Authority is only what people allow a person to have. If a president says jump, but no one jumps, he has no authority.
If he says jump, and people agree to jump, he has authority.
Its the system that’s setup. And it depends if people follow the system
In this case, that authority is granted through the Constitution. If it’s written in there, it counts. If it isn’t, then it doesn’t. Meaning, he can’t just rewrite the Constitution, because the Constitution is very clear that he does not have the authority to do that. Neither does the judiciary.
The Constitution can only be amended by a supermajority in both the House and Senate, or by a National Convention. That’s how the system is set up.
For a counterpoint, see the 14th Amendment Section 3:
This orange piece of shit president we have isn’t qualified under The Constitution to hold office. I wish people would understand how irrelevant The Constitution has become over the past decade.
Yeah. Except in that case, they forgot to actually define how to determine when someone has committed insurrection. It seemed pretty obvious at the time…all you needed to know was whether or not the person served in the Confederate army.
So, they left out any real definition beyond that. It isn’t even included in the US criminal code, so you can’t actually charge someone with that particular crime. Which makes that entire amendment, completely useless beyond its application to Confederate soldiers.
Attacking the power transfer is pretty obviously sedition. Courts can declare it and Colorado’s courts did. Then SCOTUS lied and said only congress can
Again, the Constitution itself isn’t clear who decides that…which is why it fell to Congress. They can pass legislation that codifies it in the Criminal Code, or simply vote on it, directly. But simply declaring someone guilty of “sedition” without a trial or clear language defining it, then it isn’t “obvious”.
Constitution only means something if people agree it means something and follow it. It’s a social construct. For example the usa constitution means nothing to other countries, because they choose it not to be anything. USA decided not to follow british rules. Hence the british rules are worthless in USA.
This argument is just one of definitions. One of you is talking about practical authority and the other is talking about theoretical authority under a given system of rules.
The rules of chess say a bishop only moves diagonally, but if the person you’re playing against pulls a gun on you and says they’ll move it wherever they want, it doesn’t do much good to say “but you can’t do that”.