Trump continuing to avoid any problems and getting a second term broke lib brains. One thing I've noted in lib op-eds is weird unexplained reasoning that even though it's just a piece of paper the constitution will somehow will magically do stuff all by itself even if there is nobody or nothing to uphold what it says.
An op-ed might say "Trump is not a king," when the GOP justices ruling pretty much does make him a king. And the writer knows that! Bluesky also has a fetish for the constitution as a security blanket. In a small way I sympathize. Mueller failed. Impeachment #1 failed. Impeachment #2 failed. Merrick Garland failed. Jack Smith failed. And all the other legal cases failed. The Georgia case is technically still alive but it's going to go nowhere.
I saw a crazy Bluesky thread yesterday. Here's the first post.
I’m saying it now with hopes that it sinks in: Donald Trump cannot take any oath of office until he is granted amnesty for breaking the last one he swore. That’s just straight up in the Constitution. 2/3 of each House. That’s the bar.
Her reasoning is that such-and-such is in the constitution therefore Trump can't take the oath of office. And she goes on and on with her lib fanfic constitutional security blanket fetish.
I’m saying it now with hopes that it sinks in: Donald Trump cannot take any oath of office until he is granted amnesty for breaking the last one he swore. That’s just straight up in the Constitution. 2/3 of each House. That’s the bar.
This is an unprecedented situation, but the 14th Amendment is clear: Congress can clear the disability to hold office by someone who has committed insurrection or rebellion by a 2/3 vote of each House. Donald Trump had Congressional majorities agree that he incited an insurrection. It counts!
For the first time ever in January 2021, the House impeached a president twice. He was charged with inciting an insurrection. Sen. Rand Paul argued that it was unconstitutional to hold the trial as impeachment is about removal, but the House asked for disqualification from future office.
Sen. Paul’s motion to dismiss the disqualification from future office was dismissed by the Senate, 55-45. The trial then took place, and while it did not meet the threshold for conviction, an unambiguous, bipartisan majority for the first time ever, agreed that Trump incited an insurrection.
Further, the votes against his conviction never argued his innocence. Republican senators instead rationalized that impeachment is for removal, and so Trump being gone negated its purpose. But they forgot about the 14th Am. And why would they remember? It had been 150 years since it mattered.
But with the (fucking bullshit) ruling in Trump v Anderson that Congress needs to act to prevent insurrectionists from appearing on the ballot, everyone assumed that the 14th Am was dead letter. Maybe for voting. But not for the oath itself. Trump has not been cleared from the last time he broke it.
Until he is cleared by a vote of 2/3 of the House and Senate, he is ineligible to wield the powers of the presidency, even if he was elected to do so. His orders have no authority; his actions are not sanctified. He is not a legitimate president because he cannot take the oath of office.
Instead, JD Vance should be assumed to be the President-Elect until Trump is cleared to take the oath. Vance is not ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment and requires no vote of 2/3 of Congress to swear his oath. His orders will be legitimate. He’s the choice of voters. He can be POTUS.
Even if she were completely correct it wouldn't matter because the only thing that actually matters is what people do and allow to happen. If the energy does not exist to do that due to other forces/pressures then it simply doesn't happen. In this case, the libs don't want to split the country even more which certainly occur if anyone tried to use any mechanisms to prevent Trump now because the goal of libs is protecting the status quo and you would categorically enter a new politicla environment by taking that action.
I wanted to read the whole thing but it is so unhinged i had to bail. Fuck me but i cannot engage my empathy software for these chuds.
It's partly gotta be my FILs fault. This guy, proudly apolitical ("they're all crooks so i stay out of it"), voted for the first time in 2020. Now that he's become "engaged" (watching MSNBC) he's become absolutely insufferable. It's the absolute worst having the world explained to me by someone like him, who knows i've at least been paying attention for decades. What is MSNBC's secret sauce? How do the talking heads make him and others like him so confident that they know better?
I don't wanna shit on my poor FIL too much tho... Even though he's definitely a dipshit, he's mostly alright, and now that trump won he's on the bottle. He and MIL are killing a bottle a day. Never has that man had a drink outside typical socialization. Wild i tell ya, you'd have to know him to know how wild that is. MSNBC et al are killing him, killing both of them... and it's awful to see. And. AND. What could i even tell them to make it better? That FIL had it closer to correct before he ever cast a ballot?
Oh believe me i have tried. He's amenable but those two are even more stubborn than I am and unfortunately it's off the table. MIL loves her cable news. Loves the cable experience. Yes i know that sounds nuts but it's the only way i can describe how she is with it... She'll browse that slow loading list of mostly bullshit channels like she's digging for gold. She told me once watching the news with her father is a cherished childhood memory. It's bonkers man, but i dunno how to extract worms so deeply buried.
Have they forgotten about Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024) where SCOTUS gave Congress exclusive power to exercise the 14th already?
SCOTUS doesn't think 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is enough to count as Congress enforcing it, and there's no chance they'll pass a new statute to overturn the opinion, because they didn't even make a half-hearted nonbinding resolution in the 117th when Dems had both houses
This makes libs look so ridiculous that I'm surprised it's a lib meme and not making fun of them
Trump continuing to avoid any problems and getting a second term broke lib brains. One thing I've noted in lib op-eds is weird unexplained reasoning that even though it's just a piece of paper the constitution will somehow will magically do stuff all by itself even if there is nobody or nothing to uphold what it says.
An op-ed might say "Trump is not a king," when the GOP justices ruling pretty much does make him a king. And the writer knows that! Bluesky also has a fetish for the constitution as a security blanket. In a small way I sympathize. Mueller failed. Impeachment #1 failed. Impeachment #2 failed. Merrick Garland failed. Jack Smith failed. And all the other legal cases failed. The Georgia case is technically still alive but it's going to go nowhere.
I saw a crazy Bluesky thread yesterday. Here's the first post.
Her reasoning is that such-and-such is in the constitution therefore Trump can't take the oath of office. And she goes on and on with her lib fanfic constitutional security blanket fetish.
Full text
https://subium.com/profile/gothamgirlblue.com/post/3lbhqpkvmhk2k
I’m saying it now with hopes that it sinks in: Donald Trump cannot take any oath of office until he is granted amnesty for breaking the last one he swore. That’s just straight up in the Constitution. 2/3 of each House. That’s the bar.
This is an unprecedented situation, but the 14th Amendment is clear: Congress can clear the disability to hold office by someone who has committed insurrection or rebellion by a 2/3 vote of each House. Donald Trump had Congressional majorities agree that he incited an insurrection. It counts!
For the first time ever in January 2021, the House impeached a president twice. He was charged with inciting an insurrection. Sen. Rand Paul argued that it was unconstitutional to hold the trial as impeachment is about removal, but the House asked for disqualification from future office.
Sen. Paul’s motion to dismiss the disqualification from future office was dismissed by the Senate, 55-45. The trial then took place, and while it did not meet the threshold for conviction, an unambiguous, bipartisan majority for the first time ever, agreed that Trump incited an insurrection.
Further, the votes against his conviction never argued his innocence. Republican senators instead rationalized that impeachment is for removal, and so Trump being gone negated its purpose. But they forgot about the 14th Am. And why would they remember? It had been 150 years since it mattered.
But with the (fucking bullshit) ruling in Trump v Anderson that Congress needs to act to prevent insurrectionists from appearing on the ballot, everyone assumed that the 14th Am was dead letter. Maybe for voting. But not for the oath itself. Trump has not been cleared from the last time he broke it.
Until he is cleared by a vote of 2/3 of the House and Senate, he is ineligible to wield the powers of the presidency, even if he was elected to do so. His orders have no authority; his actions are not sanctified. He is not a legitimate president because he cannot take the oath of office.
Instead, JD Vance should be assumed to be the President-Elect until Trump is cleared to take the oath. Vance is not ineligible to hold office under the 14th Amendment and requires no vote of 2/3 of Congress to swear his oath. His orders will be legitimate. He’s the choice of voters. He can be POTUS.
I love that they went through the effort of writing that whole fanfic only for Vance to end up president lmao
Even if she were completely correct it wouldn't matter because the only thing that actually matters is what people do and allow to happen. If the energy does not exist to do that due to other forces/pressures then it simply doesn't happen. In this case, the libs don't want to split the country even more which certainly occur if anyone tried to use any mechanisms to prevent Trump now because the goal of libs is protecting the status quo and you would categorically enter a new politicla environment by taking that action.
I wanted to read the whole thing but it is so unhinged i had to bail. Fuck me but i cannot engage my empathy software for these chuds.
It's partly gotta be my FILs fault. This guy, proudly apolitical ("they're all crooks so i stay out of it"), voted for the first time in 2020. Now that he's become "engaged" (watching MSNBC) he's become absolutely insufferable. It's the absolute worst having the world explained to me by someone like him, who knows i've at least been paying attention for decades. What is MSNBC's secret sauce? How do the talking heads make him and others like him so confident that they know better?
I don't wanna shit on my poor FIL too much tho... Even though he's definitely a dipshit, he's mostly alright, and now that trump won he's on the bottle. He and MIL are killing a bottle a day. Never has that man had a drink outside typical socialization. Wild i tell ya, you'd have to know him to know how wild that is. MSNBC et al are killing him, killing both of them... and it's awful to see. And. AND. What could i even tell them to make it better? That FIL had it closer to correct before he ever cast a ballot?
If he is becoming an alcoholic you may need to consider cutting this poor man's cable line
Oh believe me i have tried. He's amenable but those two are even more stubborn than I am and unfortunately it's off the table. MIL loves her cable news. Loves the cable experience. Yes i know that sounds nuts but it's the only way i can describe how she is with it... She'll browse that slow loading list of mostly bullshit channels like she's digging for gold. She told me once watching the news with her father is a cherished childhood memory. It's bonkers man, but i dunno how to extract worms so deeply buried.
American civil religion is so bizarre.
Have they forgotten about Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 (2024) where SCOTUS gave Congress exclusive power to exercise the 14th already?
SCOTUS doesn't think 18 U.S.C. § 2383 is enough to count as Congress enforcing it, and there's no chance they'll pass a new statute to overturn the opinion, because they didn't even make a half-hearted nonbinding resolution in the 117th when Dems had both houses
reminds me of the sovereign citizen kooks