General Discussion

Atticus

(15,124 posts) Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:16 AM Jan 2019

Don't tell me it is "unprecedented". What isn't lately? Don't bother saying there is no

specific provision for it in our Constitution. Just consider the following.

Trump's hand-picked SOS, Mr. Pompeo, has said that Maduro is not the legitimate president of Venezuela BECAUSE he was not elected in a "free and fair" election. Therefore, reasons Pompeo, his action in ordering our diplomats out of his country was ineffective and invalid.

Apply the same SOUND reasoning to Pompeo's boss: no free and fair election, therefore his actions (appointments, etc.) are ineffective and invalid.

I have previously suggested that Trump's "election" be ANNULLED, i.e., "held for naught" and any acts not legislatively reconfirmed be "undone". I was roundly criticized for not coloring within the lines.

Thoughts?

Addendum: "It's never been done before!" is a classic CONSERVATIVE excuse for inaction.

8 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Don't tell me it is "unprecedented". What isn't lately? Don't bother saying there is no (Original Post) Atticus Jan 2019 OP

Well why do they still recognize Putin then? Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2019 #1

Who is "they"? Russia's "voters" recognize Putin because they obviously have no choice. We Atticus Jan 2019 #3

I know it's not. Tommy_Carcetti Jan 2019 #4

Sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks. I value your opinion. nt Atticus Jan 2019 #7

I agree with you. We can't go back two years but we can nullify all appointments and legislation by Bluepinky Jan 2019 #2

Especially Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Crutchez_CuiBono Jan 2019 #5

Is "it's unconstitutional" a classic CONSERVATIVE shanny Jan 2019 #6

"Not mentioned in the Constitution" is not the same as "unconstitutional". FISA warrants, laws Atticus Jan 2019 #8

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,230 posts)

1. Well why do they still recognize Putin then?

Reply to Atticus (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:19 AM

Jan 2019

Why not claim Navalny is the true President of Russia?

Atticus

(15,124 posts)

3. Who is "they"? Russia's "voters" recognize Putin because they obviously have no choice. We

Reply to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #1)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:30 AM

Jan 2019

recognize him because it is convenient (especially for Trump) and there are no known alternatives short of refusing to deal with Russia.

Mostly, Putin's illegitimacy is not our responsibility. Trump's illegitimacy IS.

Tommy_Carcetti

(43,230 posts)

4. I know it's not.

Reply to Atticus (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:31 AM

Jan 2019

My question was addressed to Pompeo.

I agree with you.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)

7. Sorry if I misunderstood. Thanks. I value your opinion. nt

Reply to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #4)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:34 AM

Jan 2019

Bluepinky

(2,279 posts)

2. I agree with you. We can't go back two years but we can nullify all appointments and legislation by

Reply to Atticus (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:21 AM

Jan 2019

passed by this (non) President.

Crutchez_CuiBono

(7,725 posts)

5. Especially Gorsuch and Kavanaugh.

Reply to Bluepinky (Reply #2)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:33 AM

Jan 2019

shanny

(6,709 posts)

6. Is "it's unconstitutional" a classic CONSERVATIVE

Reply to Atticus (Original post)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:34 AM

Jan 2019

excuse? Because that is what you'll hear, and what is the case.

There's no provision for oversies and there is explicit prohibition of retroactive laws.

Only way out is through. Get a unified progressive government in place--one that is no more bound by convention or comity than the Rs have proven themselves to be--and FIX it. Maybe start by greatly enlarging the Supreme Court, load it up with RBG and Thurgood Marshall clones and start overturning every abominable decision the troglodytes spew out.

Atticus

(15,124 posts)

8. "Not mentioned in the Constitution" is not the same as "unconstitutional". FISA warrants, laws

Reply to shanny (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 25, 2019, 09:49 AM

Jan 2019

against fully automated weapons and "No Parking" zones are not mentioned in the Constitution but, somehow, we abide all of them. Your argument is still "It's never been done before".

And, new constructions and interpretations of the Constitution do not run afoul of ex post facto provisions.

Reply to this discussion