• Mueller Examining Trump's Tweets in Wide-Ranging Obstruction Inquiry
    22 replies, posted
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/us/politics/trump-tweets-mueller-obstruction.html#click=https://t.co/SVtwbSFdqw
Keep turning up the heat.
Galaxy brain: post such dumb shit so often Mueller can never finish the investigation
Impeachment requires a majority in the house but 2/3rd of the senate. This means that dems can get it to the senate, but it's up to us to put the heat on enough republicans in the senate to convict
I'm not sure if any criminal has ever displayed a more blatant motive than Donald Trump.
Even if the senate fails to remove trump from office, can the FBI simply arrest him?
Presumably while having a bottle of Scotch or something in arm's reach because how else is he gonna get through all them and stay sane.
I think there's technically only one person in the government that can? It was mentioned in another thread on here.
So if the Senate fails, then it's up to...?
If the Sergeant of Arms can't do it, then presumably their subordinate would. If literally none of them can or are willing to then technically speaking nobody would have the legal power to remove or arrest the President. You could only do so illegally on hopes that your arrest would later be found legal due to new interpretations of legal or constitutional statute.
Technically the VP and cabinet can declare Trump a mental invalid and take over
Only voters
As I wrote, legally: Nobody. And the SoA can't arrest Trump without being ordered to do so by said Senate. So, basically, if the Senate refuses to order the arrest of a President nobody has the legal authority to do so. A President with a complicit Congress has, as I've stated in the past, literally unlimited power -- both legal and illegal.
We need to rewrite our constitution
Technically speaking, they don't have the legal authority either. The President only becomes the President when various parts of the government agree to allow them to become the President. Even if elected, theoretically (and this would be antithetical to our Constitution and all sense of rationality), the Government could simply reject to officiate the new President -- and then we would have two Presidents.
Or "second amendment people"
Alright then we need to split America into 3 countries where the Republican shitheads in the flyover states can die in an opiate-induced squalor cause those over-represented rednecks are destroying this country
I'd love to see Mattis drag Trump's ass out of office and throw him in a cell.
There too engorged on propaganda shit out by Fox to do a damn thing.
Technically speaking, absent an effort to infringe their rights to hold arms, the 2nd amendment would not justify it. There is no actual, legal, basis for the right of US citizens to overthrow their Government. It is not specifically allowed in the Bill of Rights or DoI. It would be rather foolish for them to have done so at the time, given where they were writing the Constitution and in what state, given that an attempt to overthrow that State's government had occurred not two months before the convention. However, if we're to take the intentions of the writers of the Constitution as the 'correct interpretation of the Constitution' then there is a clear line drawn by Locke as to when you should ignore what your government allows and simply reject it and take it back by force until it works in your interests rather than against them. The concept of the right of revolution was developed at the beginning of the Enlightenment era in the work Two Treatises of Government. Written by the philosopher John Locke, the right to revolution formed an integral part of his social contract theory, in which he tried to define the origins and basis for social conditions and relationships. Locke declared that under natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and estate; under the social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of citizens, to replace the government with one that served the interests of citizens. In some cases, Locke deemed revolution an obligation. The right of revolution thus essentially acted as a safeguard against tyranny. Locke affirmed an explicit right to revolution in Two Treatises of Government: “whenever the Legislators endeavor to take away, and destroy the Property of the People, or to reduce them to Slavery under Arbitrary Power, they put themselves into a state of War with the People, who are thereupon absolved from any farther Obedience, and are left to the common Refuge, which God hath provided for all Men, against Force and Violence. Whensoever therefore the Legislative shall transgress this fundamental Rule of Society; and either by Ambition, Fear, Folly or Corruption, endeavor to grasp themselves, or put into the hands of any other an Absolute Power over the Lives, Liberties, and Estates of the People; By this breach of Trust they forfeit the Power, the People had put into their hands, for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the People, who have a Right to resume their original Liberty.”[4]
There isn't, but that's what the amendment is for. They put that in there so that the people that used that right could later write their own legal basis for it after they get done fixing the rest of the mess.
That would never ever happen unless the union shrank
Arguably, that amendment was originally established because 'now we have to protect a nation but we have no army large enough to do so -- and so therefore we shall entreat and enshrine the rights of men to bear arms such that States may raise up their own militia to protect the country - and be nationally recognized therefore as 'the US Army' even though they are the individual militia armies of each particular state'.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.