The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

[BlackSand]

.

.​

 

[blackhawk]

TDSSSDD.

 

[sparky]

I see no reason why he should not be able adjourn the congress in this time of crises,

maybe its about who gets to declare 'crisis' Mr B...

You wrote the same thing I wrote in a long post, but did it in nine words.

well..... i can only type with two fingers Mr B..... ~S~

 

[Winston]

OK OP, enough is enough, bye.....I'm gonna have to stick you on the list with the other retards.

Pussy

 

[1srelluc]

Pussy

Bugger off

 

[BluesLegend]

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law.

LOL all of the SCOTUS justices were formally confirmed by the Senate in accordance with the Constitution so Democrats can just SUCK IT!

 

[marvin martian]

". . In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. . . "

Remember, the people writing this stuff loudly cheered when Joe Biden's thugs literally held people down and forced them to take an experimental injection into their bodies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law.

Yes, to make the president an autocrat and dictator, consistent with unitary executive dogma, in continued support of the Imperial Presidency.

It was never the Framers’ intent that presidents should be above the law and have the power of a despot – another example of the Court’s contempt for the Framers’ intent.

 

[Dekster]

The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.
Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

The current supreme court seems more intent on devolving federalism, not making the POTUS king. Though I suspect if the framers were to come to modern times, they would be more disturbed that so many scallywags were being allowed to vote. They wanted successful, community-oriented people with vested interest in the country's success to be the electorate, not the self-interested welfare class.

 

[daveman]

We're in the second American revolution, and you're a loyalist to the crown.

If he'd been around for the first one, he'd have informed on the Founders to the Crown.

 

[daveman]

Yes, to make the president an autocrat and dictator, consistent with unitary executive dogma, in continued support of the Imperial Presidency.

It was never the Framers’ intent that presidents should be above the law and have the power of a despot – another example of the Court’s contempt for the Framers’ intent.

The Framers never intended for the Federal government to grow as powerful as it has...and you want to get even bigger.

Don't pretend you give a shit about what they intended now.

 

[MisterBeale]

If he'd been around for the first one, he'd have informed on the Founders to the Crown.

. . and if he made such sentiments known, without then fleeing to Canada. . . possibly tar & feathered.

 

[Winston]

The Framers never intended for the Federal government to grow as powerful as it has...and you want to get even bigger.

Don't pretend you give a shit about what they intended now.

I don't believe you know what you are talking about. The Second Constitutional Convention was specifically held to grant more power to the Federal Government., especially to support the Revolutionary War. We needed funding, diplomatic appointments, and the ability to negotiate treaties.

After the war we had the Congress of the Confederation that governed the nation for eight years. They adopted the Constitution, further expanding the power of the federal government. Obviously, they had no problem with the federal government getting larger, and more powerful, because that is what they did. You can read various journals noting the debates that took place throughout the pre-Constitution period. Find me one, one founder arguing that the Federal Government shouldn't get too big.
I mean it is just a meme, repeated ad nauseum by Republicans in order to manipulate the simple minded and historically ignorant. Now, what the founders were worried about was a breakdown in the separation of powers specifically built into the Constitution to protect that same Constitution from people like Trump.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent, is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted, that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies, should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels, having no communication whatever with one another.

Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53

 

[daveman]

I don't believe you know what you are talking about. The Second Constitutional Convention was specifically held to grant more power to the Federal Government., especially to support the Revolutionary War. We needed funding, diplomatic appointments, and the ability to negotiate treaties.

After the war we had the Congress of the Confederation that governed the nation for eight years. They adopted the Constitution, further expanding the power of the federal government. Obviously, they had no problem with the federal government getting larger, and more powerful, because that is what they did. You can read various journals noting the debates that took place throughout the pre-Constitution period. Find me one, one founder arguing that the Federal Government shouldn't get too big.
I mean it is just a meme, repeated ad nauseum by Republicans in order to manipulate the simple minded and historically ignorant. Now, what the founders were worried about was a breakdown in the separation of powers specifically built into the Constitution to protect that same Constitution from people like Trump.

In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent, is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted, that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies, should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels, having no communication whatever with one another.

Separation of Powers: James Madison, Federalist, no. 51, 347--53

Uh huh. Reminder that the Founding Fathers started a war over far less oppression that what we have now.

 

[ShahdagMountains]

It seems to me you, as the people, have more powers to invoke the overthrow of a government you are not happy with, than we British.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

No it didn't. Democrats just don't understand the decision.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

G

The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.
Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

we've mandated Trump become our king and replace our constitution, which is outdated. This is established by project 2026, for which project 2025 is basically foreplay.

 

[Independent thinker]

The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.
Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

It won't be long now. In January Trump will declare himself King and elections will be eliminated. And, Trump and his selections can make their own Constitution.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Constitution is not a grant of power for a king.

It is, instead, a grant of authority from the sovereign people to establish a republican form of government — a representative democracy of limited and enumerated powers. And the republican character of American constitutional government is expressed in the way it divides the executive, legislative and judicial powers among separate institutions.

“In the establishment of a free government,” a 19th-century Supreme Court justice, Joseph Story, observes in his “Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States,” this division “has by many been deemed a maxim of vital importance, that these powers should for ever be kept separate and distinct.” When those powers are mixed in a single individual, “such a form of government is denominated a despotism, as the whole sovereignty of the state is vested in him.”

It is not, as Story continues, that the “departments of government” should have “no common link of connection or dependence, the one upon the other, in the slightest degree.” Rather, it is that “the whole power of one of these departments should not be exercised by the same hands, which possess the whole power of either of the other departments; and that such exercise of the whole would subvert the principles of a free constitution.”

In our system, the executive branch cannot exercise the full power of the legislature. It cannot act as a monarch would. The sovereign people did not imbue their power into a leviathan. The upshot of this is that any interpretation of the Constitution that grants the president monarchical power is wrong. The structure of the Constitution precludes a royal prerogative and the ethos of American democracy forbids it. Otherwise, the revolution was for nothing.
Opinion | Trump Tries on His Crown

Bravo.

trump's SC has come as close as possible to making the prez above the law. An act that will undoubtedly come back to haunt the country. Forever tarnishing the legacy of an already tarnished Roberts court.

^ Classic example of disinformation which should be scrubbed from the Internet

 

[Winston]

Uh huh. Reminder that the Founding Fathers started a war over far less oppression that what we have now.

What fawking oppression? NO, the founders started a war because an overly powerful executive, the King, and an absolutely dysfunctional upper house. What the fawk do you think is happening now?

The founders started a war because the British army was all in their shit.