Donald Trump discussion Thread IX (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Without a doubt, serious lack of balls and spine evident

He asked Putin for help in a previous presidential election bid indicating that he will accept foreign interference in the election if it will get him into office. There's not much more to say about his ability to corrupt the US presidential election system.

I reiterate that what being questioned here is the meaning of the wording of an amendment to the constitution and a section within it, not the constitution itself. The constitution is an act of law in itself. All government in the US springs from it's lawfulness, including the method of making amendments to the constitution.

Even Trump has asked the USSC on a point of law for a certainty in what the wording of the amendment means: Is the Office of the Presidency a public office within the word and meaning of the amendment? Trump and Biden have both gone to the public electorate seeking election to that office in the past, Trump twice. If that does not make the office 0f the presidency a public office, I honestly don't know what is.

I believe that the USSC does have the legal power under the constitution to rule that the words "public office" contained in the disbarment clause do apply to the office of the presidency and those seeking election to that office.

We do agree that the USSC is the ultimate arbiter of what the constitution means. That has to include the meaning and reach of the words in the disbarment from public office clause contained within that constitution as well. Just because no previous USSC bench has made a decision on it does not mean the present USSC bench cannot do so.

Trump has asked the USSC to be the arbiter if the office he is seeking election to is a public office or not. He clearly hopes the USSC rules that the presidency is NOT a public office as defined in the disbarment clause. If the USSC finds it is not a public office as defined in the disbarment clause of the amendment then he is home free in the run for that office. If the USSC finds that the presidency is a public office as defined in the disbarment clause then he has lost one of his strongest arguments against being disbarred by the different states under their own state laws from the state ballot papers. It would also protect the right of the individual States to decide who can run for public office using the State public office ballot system to boot where the disbarment cluse is concerned.

The argument that the USSC cannot make any finding on the constitutionality of amendments made to the constitution does not ring true to my mind. It would in effect be neutering themselves.

If you don't mind, I'll sidestep that debate between us when it comes to Trump and the way different states want to control their own state laws and their understanding of the disbarment clause as it affects their own state election boards decisions on having candidates running for public office in their states, agreeing to disagree as it were.

I suggest you take a look at how the 14th amendment was formulated and passed into law as one of the reconstruction amendments by by the Republican Congress and opposed by the former confederacy.

The amendment is merely part of the constitution, not the whole. If the amendment was found by the USSC to be unconstitutional, it would not invalidate the constitution as a whole or call the whole into doubt. To argue otherwise is not, IMO, a valid argument.

Is it your argument that the USSC, if a citizen stated a case before it on the legal standing of a part of the constitution and the court decided the citizen's case had reached the level of validity and public importance for it to hear it, that the court had no legal right to hear the citizens case, let alone grant the citizen a hearing?

What would you say if the USSC differed with your opinion of its power?

Edit: I did not suggest that the amendment was improperly inserted [into the constitution].

I posted the link to you as it showed what the USSC could do and has done. I don't know what your point is with your reference that amendments are not legislation and the SC has no authority over them. Maybe you mean that legislation is open to the authority of the USSC for ruling on validity.

I do take the point that the USSC seems to have no purpose where it comes to what politicians put across the floor of congress for approval as it does not seem to have any means of enforcing any ruling it makes on matters put before it for ruling on, making any rulings the USSC valueless unless the rulings are accepted by the politicians.

The founding fathers were gents of an honourable kind [unlike the last presidential office holder] and would probably not have imagined a president like Trump being in power. Even Benedict Arnold had the good grace to exit the continental USA for a foreign country after his acts of betrayal. Hopefully the SCOTUS would not rule so on Trump's plea that he had presidential immunity AFTER he left office.

I am at a loss as to why you keep asking me questions not pertinent to what I wrote so, apart from these few words, I will not be responding to you in future as the difference of opinion between us on the abilities of SCOTUS is clearly unbridgeable by you. Have a good day.

Probably would have felt the same about Obama, tbf.

The GOP has lost the Long Island seat formerly held by George Santos to Democrat Tom Suozzi reducing the numerical hold the GOP has in the House. The candidate the GOP ran in the special election was Mazi Pilip and she has been blamed for the loss by the likes of Marjorie Taylor Greene, claiming that the GOP should not have expelled Santos from the party, that Pilip was a horrible candidate, a registered democrat who apparently hated Trump.

MTG's claim that Pilip may have been a registered Democrat but ran as a Republican in the election may be a hint that the GOP might try to claim the election was rigged against the GOP. Trump said "Republicans never learn, she didn't endorse me, maybe she was still a Democrat?".

The loss of the seat to the Democrats comes just after the House GOP managed to impeach the Admin's Secretary with responsibility for the southern border area and immigration control there on charges of failing in his task there. If his trial goes ahead, it'll be in the Senate where the Democrats hold the majority. It looks like it'll be another loss for Trump and the GOP there, though he will probably step away from the mess and blame the GOP for it.

McCarthy bent over backwards to appease the bunch of lunatics with Gaetz at their centre and they still ousted him anyway. I'd imagine he despises him.