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

[Billiejeens]

Landslide victory, flippin delusional, lowest margin of popular vote victory in modern history. God but you people are stupid. Just where do you get your information? I am thinking you are pulling it out of your ass.

Landslide
Acknowledged by all.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

Of course you commies think as long as a commiecrat is in power, there are no limited or enumerated powers. They can do whatever the **** they want without repercussions. But let a republican come in and suddenly you're all about enumerated powers, give me a ******* break.

.

 

[Winston]

Landslide
Acknowledged by all.

Piss off you stupid shit.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/22/trump-win-popular-vote-below-50-percent-00190793

 

[OKTexas]

Piss off you stupid shit.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/22/trump-win-popular-vote-below-50-percent-00190793

As the lagging votes come in his numbers are rising he a bit above 50% today. So FOAD 31 of the States went for Trump, that's 62% of the States.

.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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.”mov

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 last king we had was lbj who moved ss funds into the general fund so he could bomb the shit out of vietnam.

 

[Billiejeens]

Piss off you stupid shit.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2024/11/22/trump-win-popular-vote-below-50-percent-00190793

Oh
You mad

 

[Mac-7]

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.

When the SC leaned left libs were as happy as pigs a mud hole

But now it leans right and lefties cant stand it

 

[berg80]

Of course you commies think as long as a commiecrat is in power, there are no limited or enumerated powers. They can do whatever the **** they want without repercussions.

You know Biden immediately called for the reversal of the SC's presidential immunity ruling after it was announced, right?

 

[CrazyTrader55]

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.

You lost.

 

[DGS49]

The Supreme Court's decision on Presidential immunity was the biggest "Nothing Burger" I have ever read. It was utterly predictable and not noteworthy in any way, except that it was so obvious that it never had to be articulated previously. Leftist claims that it gives the President unprecedented protections are absurd.

When acting AS PRESIDENT, he has immunity from prosecution when acting AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN he does not. Whether he is acting as President or a private citizen, when challenged in court, will be determined by the fact-finder (judge or jury).

Nothing burger. No change to existing law or understanding.

 

[struth]

You know Biden immediately called for the reversal of the SC's presidential immunity ruling after it was announced, right?

Something a monarch would do…try to overpower the separate coequal branch of govt

 

[Anathema]

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 US Constitution died with the first shots of the Civil War. FDR ensured it was buried deep with no hope of resurrection. Whst we need now is a brutal, violent Authoritarian regime to give this country the cleansing (ideological, population, and property) that it desperately needs to allow it to be rebuilt properly.

 

[LeroyDumonde]

You know Biden immediately called for the reversal of the SC's presidential immunity ruling after it was announced, right?

Was he senile enough to believe that they would?

 

[OKTexas]

You know Biden immediately called for the reversal of the SC's presidential immunity ruling after it was announced, right?

That just confirms what maobama said about him, "Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** thing up". The qualified immunity formalized a practice that has existed as long as the country. But the TDS you commies displayed, proved the common sense previously used had been thrown out the window. Hence the court found it necessary to rule that presidents do indeed have qualified immunity for official acts. It's not immunity for anything a president wants to do, his actions must fall within the enumerated powers specified in the Constitution.

.

 

[berg80]

trump will possess unchecked power during the upcoming term. Obviously, impeachment is off the table. If enough Repub senators were too cowed to vote for impeachment after the failure of Dotard's bloodless coup they never will.

His SC has given him legal immunity for virtually any crime he chooses to commit.

And he is term limited so he does not have to concern himself with re-election. Besides, in four years he may have so corrupted the country he'll cancel elections to the cheers of The Following who appear to rather like the idea of an authoritarian leader.

 

[SeaMajor7]

trump will possess unchecked power during the upcoming term. Obviously, impeachment is off the table. If enough Repub senators were too cowed to vote for impeachment after the failure of Dotard's bloodless coup they never will.

His SC has given him legal immunity for virtually any crime he chooses to commit.

And he is term limited so he does not have to concern himself with re-election. Besides, in four years he may have so corrupted the country he'll cancel elections to the cheers of The Following who appear to rather like the idea of an authoritarian leader.

Take your meds you ******* PSYCHOPATH.

 

[struth]

trump will possess unchecked power during the upcoming term. Obviously, impeachment is off the table. If enough Repub senators were too cowed to vote for impeachment after the failure of Dotard's bloodless coup they never will.

His SC has given him legal immunity for virtually any crime he chooses to commit.

And he is term limited so he does not have to concern himself with re-election. Besides, in four years he may have so corrupted the country he'll cancel elections to the cheers of The Following who appear to rather like the idea of an authoritarian leader.

Term limited? I don't think so, I hear he is gonna simply cancel elections and stay in office.

 

[Billiejeens]

trump will possess unchecked power during the upcoming term. Obviously, impeachment is off the table. If enough Repub senators were too cowed to vote for impeachment after the failure of Dotard's bloodless coup they never will.

His SC has given him legal immunity for virtually any crime he chooses to commit.

And he is term limited so he does not have to concern himself with re-election. Besides, in four years he may have so corrupted the country he'll cancel elections to the cheers of The Following who appear to rather like the idea of an authoritarian leader.

An executive order cancelling elections for a set period, such as a decade would give the country time to rebound from the disaster of the Biden Administration and that executive order would be far less damaging than the ones that Biden is issuing subsequent to his party being told to STOP the nonsense.