"
Posted on 07/02/2024 2:51:57 AM PDT by fwdude
Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.) said Monday he will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court ruling issued Monday, which largely shields former presidents from criminal prosecution for actions in office. “I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law. This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy,” Morelle wrote on the social platform X.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
The ERA was introduced in 1973 and still has not been ratified by enough states.
What these morons don’t understand, in their hate-clouded minds, is that no President or ex-President had EVER been criminally prosecuted. There was effectively TOTAL AND COMPLETE immunity. Now, the USSC has laid out where a POTUS is absolutely immune (while performing clearly constitutional duties), where they are presumptively immune (acting as POTUS in public matters, so you can prove otherwise), and no immunity AT ALL for purely personal matters (if the POTUS murders someone, for example ).
The Dems should actually be happy about this, as the actions that he’s being charged with fall into the middle group, so Jack Smith can attempt to overcome the immunity that is presumed. Oh, wait, that’s right - Jack Smith wasn’t approved as a Special Prosecutor by Congress, only appointed by Meritless Garbage, and Clarence Thomas pointed that out in his opinion on this case (and Judge Cannon in FL was once his clerk). Yeah, these cases with Smith are going to be dismissed out of hand, as he has zero authority.
But I will reiterate my point - Dems should actually be happy, but are too infected with TDS to understand that.
The ERA is dead, per a specified deadline for state approval in the 1980's.
But that didn't stop the 'rats in the Virginia legislature from "deeming" it passed.
Obviously, this idiot didn’t even bother to take the time to read through the decision itself. Thankfully, a constitutional amendment like this will never pass.
The cross eyed slug strikes again! He also is suing Kia for having autos that are too easy to break into (anything but prosecute actual criminals)
He makes Buddy Hackett look handsome!
"
Yep and they illegally rushed it through for a vote this November in New York. ERA being resurrected.
This SCOTUS ruling is nowhere near enough. I want them to declare that Donald Trump (and ONLY Donald Trump) has the right to shoot anyone he wants RIGHT IN THE FACE.
This communist lackey knows nothing about how amendments are prosed, processed, and approved...
I'll all for trolling the left mercilessly over this. Confirm their feigned fears and tell them that they're destined for the boxcars. "Arbeit macht frei!"
The relatives of the soldiers killed at Abbey Gate should file a wrongful death lawsuit against Biden & see if they change their tune.
“So how can congress override USSC.”
Congress can pass a Constitutional amendment to overturn a Supreme Court decision. For example, the amendments passed after the Civil War overturned Dredd Scott and other decisions related to slavery. However, it takes more than Congress passing the amendment. It takes 2/3 of each house of Congress to even start, then 3/4 of the states (38) must ratify the amendment.
Guess he thinks Godfather trumps Supreme.
“Congress cannot change the Constitution...” - by themselves. However, every amendment added to the Constitution had to first be passed by Congress. The only other way for an amendment to be added is through an Article V convention.
The only other way for an amendment to be proposed is through an Article V convention.
Ratification of the proposed amendment will be accomplished by state legislatures or state ratifying conventions, as directed by Congress.
Correct, I just used a little shorthand. My point was that in all cases to date, amendments have all started by passing Congress.
I am beginning to think that every elected official must take and pass a class on the Constitution before they can run for office.
Next I would like to see that every law have footnotes that shows where in the constitution they have the right to pass such a law.
Next I would like to see any law maker that votes to pass a law that is later ruled to be unconstitutional to be immediately removed from office.
The first Tea Party Congress adopted a policy that every passed law must reference the Constitution. The minute Pelosi got control back that policy disappeared.
Such a Constitutional knowledge litmus test would place the test at a higher sovereignty then the people. There’s plenty of opportunity during a campaign to see if you’re electing an ignoramus. The truth is most people don’t care! They want a Congresscritter that will get their snout into the taxpayer money trough.
Many bad laws get declared unconstitutional decades after they’re passed, most of if not all of its authors are dead. Also, on occasion the USSC will revisit an issue and declare something unconstitutional that previously wasn’t. We need more of that! Clarence Thomas has stated he would like to revisit many of the FDR cases (That has been done and some have been overturned!)
I’ll give you an example of a federal law\program that has passed SCOTUS muster - social security. I can’t find any words allowing a federal mandated/administered old age pension fund in the Constitution. I am not saying it shouldn’t have been done. I am just saying it should have been done without abusing the Constitution and financial good sense. That wasn’t done because the proper way (Amendment!) was too slow. The authors wanted a big PR score for their party come election time, if they had to trample the Constitution to get the score so be it. There are many such examples!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.