NY Democrat introduces constitutional amendment reversing Supreme Court immunity ruling

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Hill

07/25/24 10:05 AM ET


Rep. Joseph Morelle (D-N.Y.) introduced a constitutional amendment Wednesday seeking to undo the Supreme Court’s decision that former presidents enjoy a presumption of criminal immunity for official acts. “Earlier this month the Supreme Court of the United States undermined not just the foundation of our constitutional government, but the foundation of our democracy,” Morelle said.

“At its core, our nation relies on the principle that no American stands above another in the eyes of the law. “ Morelle’s proposed amendment would make clear that “no official may invoke immunity for criminal actions solely on the basis of the duties of their office,” the lawmaker’s office told The Hill.

The Supreme Court handed down the 6-3 decision earlier this month, ruling along ideological lines that presidents have absolute immunity for actions that fall within the core responsibilities of their office, and are “at least presumptively immune” for all other official acts. The decision was a win for former President Trump, who filed the suit regarding his federal election subversion case in Washington, D.C.

The decision first sent the case back to a lower court to decide whether his actions related to the Jan. 6, 2021, riot on the Capitol merit protection from criminal prosecution for choices made while still in the White House. When the nation’s high court hands down a ruling on a constitutional issue, the judgment is virtually final, and decisions can only be altered with a constitutional amendment and a new ruling.

Read more: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4792211-new-york-joe-morelle-donald-trump-immunity-ruling-adversal/

[Cheezoholic]

1. Let's keep it up. Sure, not a chance in hell but it's a record, a record of what OUR Project '25 looks like! n/t

[markodochartaigh]

9. Some battles should be fought

because they can be won. Some battles should be fought because the other side is so odious.

[calimary]

13. ...and should NEVER be given up on.

Some battles just simply NEED to be fought. And won. Like this, here, now.

[markodochartaigh]

14. "...NEVER be given up on."

This is so true. I hear some people say "This is not the US that I grew up in" like maga is something new and unprecedented.

Well, I grew up gay a half century ago in Amarillo Texas. Maga is absolutely the US I grew up in. And before that, there were the kkk and the know-nothings. The fight against authoritarianism is a never-ending fight. It is not something that can be swept under the rug, or ignored in the hope that it will go away.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

2. The Subversive Court was absolutely wrong.

I still can't find anything in the U.S. Constitution which grants such immunity.

It does explicity state otherwise:
Article I, Section 3, paragraph 7

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.

[ancianita]

7. "According to law." That's what the "official acts," just made up whole cloth from "doctrine" factories who

gave them the lingo dressed up with the "Amicus curiae" name. Anything that civil and criminal law explicitly states gets a president "immunized" by "official acts." That lingo is at the evil heart of their corrupt ruling.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. They aspire to royalty; they set themselves up to determine what is official and not

They also overrule the scientists consulted by the Executive branch in deciding who has broken rules and regulations.

This is a rogue, subversive Supremacist Court. It subverts the rule of law and democracy itself.

[ancianita]

12. All that for sure.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

17. Sorry. Didn't mean to preach. I get mad every time I think about them.

[ancianita]

21. No worries! I feel ya!

[pat_k]

3. kick!

[Think. Again.]

4. K&R That ruling MUST be reversed.

[republianmushroom]

5. Hopefully

[Bundbuster]

6. Get the ball rolling

The republicons have been subverting the White Supremacist Court since Uncle Thomas' horseshit lie-filled steamrolled installation in 1990.

[barbtries]

8. wonder if republicans will be lining up for this

when Harris becomes president! motherfuckers.

[Scruffy1]

11. With the current Supremes it makes no difference.

Their "interpretation" will be based the same. I can here them now. "It's not a crime if a Republican President does it.

[Orrex]

15. Biden could jump-start this by undertaking a few "official acts"

That would get Republikkkans on board in a hurry.

[jmowreader]

19. You know the problem with that

"I'm going to order the court in New York State to put Trump in prison for the rest of his miserable life."

"Good luck finding him. Ever since the shooting they've been sending out.a hologram to campaign for him. No one knows where he is."

[V850i]

16. Pass a resolution saying Congress does not recognize the SC's right to extralegally amend the constitution

There was no constitutional question nor any law passed by congress in question with respect to their ruling. Nothing in the constitution about any presidential immunity, no laws passed by congress about presidential immunity. They made it up out of whole cloth essentially amending or inserting an immunity clause into the constitution. Congress should just pass a resolution saying we don't recognize the Supreme Court''s ability to usurp Congress and the States power to amend the constitution.

[The Grand Illuminist]

18. Dead on arrival

Again, introducing amendments in its traditional method will not work, and will never work for many many generations. Even if it is meant as symbolic, symbolism does not bring TRUE action for real change. The only way is to elect pro Article V convention Democrats to their respective states houses. Even if it is a runaway, it is still real action taken.

[BumRushDaShow]

20. "introducing amendments in its traditional method will not work"

Read the history of the 27th Amendment and try again.

[The Grand Illuminist]

22. I don't think we can afford to wait 200 and change years.

Patience is just too thin.

[BumRushDaShow]

23. The point of the suggestion

was to note that the 27th Amendment attempt STARTED IN CONGRESS and needed the ratification of the states to finish.

The same with the ERA still trying to get states to finish ratifying (including with some trying to rescind the previous ratifications).

[The Grand Illuminist]

25. The problem is getting 2/3s of both House and Senate to bring it to the states.

That is why I think it is dead on arrival. If I misunderstood you, please forgive me. It's just how I see it.

[appmanga]

27. I would think...

...Republicans don't want a Democrat with the power of a king either.

[The Grand Illuminist]

28. If that is the case. So when Harris wins the presidency...

Last edited Sat Jul 27, 2024, 09:49 AM - Edit history (1)

I hope she uses it to its fullest extent from Trump all the way down to his last voter.

[BumRushDaShow]

29. The drafters purposely made it hard in order to limit frivolous changes

and regardless of how it is started, it still requires 3/4 of states to ratify.

But initiating it in Congress at least doesn't require the states to "organically" think about starting up a pile of conventions and puts the idea out there as a heads-up about apparent interest in making a change. This then gives the states an opportunity to consider taking the lead using the alternative method instead (particularly if they agree with the Amendment language that Congress might come up with and adopts that for their conventions).

[The Grand Illuminist]

30. Then there is this.

It take 2/3s or 34 states to activate a convention. Right now 19 states have officially signed on with 29 others currently in consideration with some made it passed one chamber. The red states are only there to pass the Balanced Budget amendment. At this stage of the game, we have a better chance at getting a convention than introducing amendments through federal legislative means (I call it the more traditional way) as both houses are split and unable to come to consensus.

[BumRushDaShow]

31. But then remember

that right now, you have this worse reality -



And for Governors -



So doing it the "state way" bumps right into the the fact that the GOP controls far more state legislatures (both chambers) than Democrats.

(ETA - and THAT was why one of the 45 2020 coup plans was to "throw the decision for the electoral college 'back to the states'" because they had legislative control over a majority of them at the time, including some like PA, GA, AZ, MI, and WI that voted for Biden)

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

24. K&R

[Runningdawg]

26. DOA - You can't get 2/3 of any group to agree on anything anymore. Ratify an amendment? LOL