1y ago

House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision

A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

politics @lemmy.world

Optional @lemmy.world

12mo ago

House Democrat is proposing a constitutional amendment to reverse Supreme Court's immunity decision

apnews.com /article/supreme-court-immunity-trump-biden-9ec81d3aa8b2fd784c1b155d82650b3e

173 comments

Ballsy move. I support this
- .
  
  At least it'll put the GOPers on record rejecting it.
  
  What we need is for a Democratic president to do something bananas and claim immunity. I bet at least the less crazy Republicans would suddenly see how that could be a problem. Maybe if Joe set one of the conservative justices on fire as an official act.
  But seriously, they have no problem with hypocrisy so that probably still wouldn't help.
  
  it will happen easily if biden wins. If the court majority becomes 5-4 liberal republicans will absolutely hop on board. Thats why dems should also float an electoral college reform and an amendment to ban gerrymandering. Even a ban on courts creating "immunity rules" should be floated since immunity is something that shouldn't be handed out as often as the supreme court does it.
  The amendment process is long and difficult and honestly being just willing to go through the extra steps makes good headlines.
  
  I propose Biden start having the military shoot those that oppose the amendment and see how long it takes to get it passed.
  
  They can if they support ranked choice under fairvote us
- An amendment requires a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate.
  It's worth a try but don't pin all your hopes on it.
  
  And that's only half the battle - then 3/4 of the state legislatures must pass it as well
IMO the only valid move for Biden right now asap, is to use his new immunity powers to invalidate his immunity powers, as a display of self checkmate.
Declare the full supreme court under threat of death has to go back and redo the decision, and all of them must vote to reverse it and remove the presidential immunity, or be hung.
This of course means "if you dont remove my ability to kill you, you will die".
Its the ultimate display of being handed ultimate power, and rejecting it through the power itself.
I cant think of any other move that makes sense really. It would be a headache in court but thats what the supreme justices get for making such a stupid ass decision.
- As far as I understand the decision (IANAL!), the definition of what constitutes an "Official Act" is left intentionally undefined, so in effect you can only claim this ultimate power if the courts like you in order to declare what you're doing official.
  This means, if I understand it correctly, king powers for Trump and nothing for Biden. They'd just rule everything Biden is doing as not an official act.
  
  The ruling happens after the act. Who knows what justices we’ll have by then.
  
  Biden could execute all members of the court and replace them with people who will agree everything he does is legal.
  
  This is easy to get around.
  Just start any order with "In my capacity as president, I decree that....."
- hanged.
  "Hung" is a... different thing, which the male justices might see as a positive.
  
  They're the same word now. Hooray language evolving!
  
  Idk, can't we fantasize about how Thomas could be hung like a black man?
- We are dealing with psychopaths who are itching to murder people and they vow to NOT recognize a free and fair election. VOTE people.
  
  I love how people will open face admit that voting is clearly not enough and then be like "remember to vote owo"
  I think folks need to start digging into a little stronger stuff than simply voting, lol
  Need to start looking into further legal options beyond just voting.
  
  So what about the part after the vote when those who vowed to ignore said vote do so?
  
  You go high, we go low!
- You realize immunity doesn't mean declare what you want, and you get it?
  Also It's not illegal for Biden to say he is invalidating his immunity powers, it's just meaningless. Now if he punched Stormy Daniel's until she agreed to give syphilis to the court, that might be illegal acts that fall under his official duties.
  Also, you need the courts behind whatever illegal thing you are going to do.
  
  Declare new rules
  Use any method, legal or otherwise, to enforce said rules
  Claim immunity
  Congratulations. You've successfully used immunity to declare whatever you want.
  
  The idea that you actually need courts behind you is laughable. Power is enforced through the threat of violence, this is how law enforcement functions. Courts do not have soldiers.
  Know who does? Commander-in-Chief, now with full immunity for any official act, like, giving orders to the military.
  One could say perhaps the soldiers themselves would be afraid of prosecution and would disobey orders, since they don't get immunity. Until the President pardons them anyway.
  Otherwise only one last line of firm defense remains: the oath each serviceman takes to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That might make someone disobey an illegal order.
  
  You realize, no...
  Immunity here means declare whatever you want, and then mandate that the military eliminate anyone who opposes your new mandate. This "fun" hypothetical is a president invalidating their immunity powers and then having that decree reinforced by death, that second part is the illegal you want in this equation.
  It's done to "Save America", so it's an official act.
  "If a president couldn't freely do rapes, bribes, frauds and incite violence without repercussions, who would way to be president?"
  one of the two candidates for US President probably
- The coward Clarence Thomas would resign. Piece of shit.
  
  Sounds like a win to me
- That was my thought too. This is sweeping and broad enough there's honestly likely multiple ways to just use the ruling to undo the ruling.
- Hanged*
- Would still end with him getting arrested/impeached though, I guess he could do it as a self-sacrifice thing and leave Harris to run
- There's a difference between having the authority to do something and being immune to prosecution for a crime.
  Biden doesn't have the authority to issue an order for summary execution.
  If he could convince someone to commit the crime of killing members of SCOTUS, and it was considered an official act of the President, then he might be shielded from prosecution for it, and he could issue a pardon for those that did the deed.
  The ruling only benefits a criminal President, and Biden isn't a criminal.
- Happy Cake Day, will you be my President?
- Except Biden is an adult and not petulant child. Democracy will prevail. The voters will take care of it come November.
  
  The average American has zero clue how anything in the government works, nor the interest in policy to actually understand what the policies their politician of choice are pushing do. The average American is so disconnected from politics it's zero surprise that shitty politicians are elected everywhere regularly.
  This isn't an indictment of the people themselves but the society they live in that somehow incientivizes general laziness when it comes to civics
Finally someone with the fucking stones to call this fascistic slow crawl out for what it is, we can still stop this. If I'm a single issue voter who's only concern is not wanting to "live" under the yolk of a tyrannical monarch (me, but not single issue), then this has my attention. The clock is ticking, I hate it too.
- Ooh, I haven't seen this turn of phrase in a while. I think you may want "yoke" over "yolk" here though.
  
  he's got egg on his face over that mistake!
  
  For Trump specifically it may be appropriate, though. The yoke of Trump's oppression would almost certainly involve mayonnaise in it somewhere.
The Constitution already guarantees this. SCOTUS is (as it is wont to do) brazenly defying it.
They should spend the rest of their natural lives in small concrete cells for the way they’ve deliberately and maliciously violated & stolen the rights of all Americans.
- 6 of them anyway. The other 3 seem to be good so far.
  
  "Leftist" comrades: but muh both sides!!!
- Not the first time. Or second. Or third. Or fourth…
  
  This week
The patriotic thing to do for Biden is to go on a crime spree using his newly found immunity. All crimes must be part of core acts or official acts. See how long that takes
- Seriously, he needs to "no not like that" this shit so far that the Republicans have no choice but to reign in their bullshit.
  
  How are they expected to prosecute the "Biden Crime Family" if they can't prosecute the Kingpin?
- Dark Brandon is the hero this country needs.
- "go on a crime"
  
  I think I a word
  “spree”
- What's a "core act" or "official act"? Who decides that?
  
  That's the insidious part. People advocating for Biden to go on a crime spree are assuming that the Supreme Court is aiming to be consistent, and apply this ruling fairly to both parties. They've INTENTIONALLY left it unspecified what counts as an "official" act, so that any question that comes up just goes right back to them, and they can rule however they see fit. Also, people are assuming the Court won't just directly contradict their own rulings, the moment it's convenient. This entire thing just shows that the Court can and will give itself final say on any questions of law or policy, I.E. anything anyone in the government does. This doesn't make the President a king, it makes the Court the king.
  
  I’ll do it
- He can still probably get impeached, if it’s something congress doesn’t like
  
  dems have the senate, he wont be convicted
  
  I don't even think this ruling allows for impeachment, TBH. This ruling was pretty broad. As long as the act is done in an official capacity and it is within the president's powers, even if only under certain circumstances which you can't prove the circumstances didn't exist if you can't prosecute, then there is immunity. Immunity means no one can even investigate officially, much less bring a case. The only thing you can investigate is if you can prove that he did it while not acting in an official capacity, which sex is one of the few things that applies to and even that could probably be manipulated, or that the president has no authority whatsoever over the subject, but that's pretty limited since he has full authority over the military and the entire executive branch as well as our nuclear weapons. I mean he can't go into the Supreme Court, take the place of a Justice and issue a judgement. But he definitely can use the CIA to assassinate a Justice to change something. And you would only be able to prosecute the CIA agents, not the president.
- People keep making this dumb joke over and over and over again. Biden isn't going to do anything trump wants to do with this newfound immunity
  
  Joke? We know that Biden won’t. But he should, if only just to show how farcical this ruling is. Maybe, start small. Make mail-in voting mandatory and the election a national holiday, via executive order. Then, officially allow all prisoners to vote. Next, make DACA recipients citizens allowed to vote. As long as he doesn’t ruffle the feathers of the capitalist class, eventually Republicans will be begging for a Constitutional Amendment.
Do this in tandem with Biden taking full advantage of the current immunity to utterly destroy the Trump campaign since it is a threat to democracy. We'll get that amendment passed in no time.
- And throw the corrupt justices in jail.
- The only way to destroy Trump is through a long series of viral propaganda documentaries.
  Not good ones. Shittily produced ones that get hosted on Vimeo.
  
  Or just order the assassination of Trump and anyone that supports him without trial, in the name of "national security". Immunity, official act, etc. See how fast the justices rescind their ruling.
I agree with this political stunt to point out the Trump Courts illegitimacy.
The words of the constitution currently have no value to the Trump Court. They just invented Total Criminal Immunity for official acts, and anything said to a government employee isn't admissible in court. In a country founded on the idea no one is above the law.
This court is worse than the Dredd Scott court, they'll just rule up is down and any amendment meant to undermine their decision actually affirms it.
For those arguing that Biden couldn't do the funniest thing ever, I disagree. It truely doesn't matter if they rule it an unofficial act. The purpose of this ruling is to get Trump out of his 34 felonies he's already been convicted of because they used a lot of testimony from administration employees. So as long as that part of the ruling stands, Biden can still get away with anything. How do you convict with no witnesses.
- The constitution even says the president isn't immune and the federalist papers spells it out EXTREMELY clearly for any "originalist" to read.
  Honestly the courts should call out SCOTUS on lying and making an invalid ruling that the constitution does not give them the authority to make, then just acting like it didn't happen.
  
  I think it’s supposed to be congress’s responsibility to do that, but I guess there’s enough conservatives there to prevent that.
  Edit: you would need at least 1/3 of senate republicans to agree to impeach a justice
A constitutional amendment implies that the constitution doesn't already cover this when, in its plain language, it definitely does. This provides an implicit concession that the court was right.
Don't give them that. Pack the court and issue the opposite decision at the earliest opportunity.
- Honestly at this rate, just start the fucking civil war already. I'd rather go hungry and fight than be pinned by fascists. They're not playing by the rules, and they intend to do us harm. Fuck that. I've got faith in us anyway, we're smart enough to not fall for their obvious horseshit and we're smart enough to win if it comes to it.
  
  I fear the civil war has already started, just without the shooting each other part. Although that's kinda already happening too.
ADDING an Amendment to a Document that the Supreme Court is IGNORING is the PERFECT way to Fix this!
- The SCOTUS will rule the president still has immunity, again...they don't care what the Constitution actually says.
- And also impossible because the Republicanazis would never allow it.
  
  republikkklowns
This will never happen. You can't get enough states to agree let alone Congress. Getting an amendment passed is near impossible in this climate. The mere fact that a Democrat proposed it mean FOX will demonize it as a threat to america
- True, but it's still the right thing to do. At the very least it will force some members of Congress to clearly and undeniably declare themselves as supporters of tyranny.
- It won't pass, but it does show that both sides aren't the same. It's the correct move even if it's just signaling.
- Ranked choice voting can fix that issue as first-past-the-post sucks so bad.
  
  Agree on ranked choice, but Prop Rep doesn't have a good track record.
Use amendment 14 section 3 to remove most of the Republicans from office.
Get rid of the idea of judicial review.
- Seems fair
House Democrat... Great, so it's dead on arrival then.
Republicans control the House and they will never allow a vote on this.
- Unless maybe biden threatens to use his immunity
  
  Maybe my pig will shit out a gold nugget.
- It puts a magnifying glass on the people obstructing the fight against blatant corruption. Which is a good start, and really the only thing that can be done with a simple majority.
  Biden could also just start assassinating the nay sayers until the point gets through, too.
  
  It does nothing, same as the votes against the Trump impeachments. "Do they have an (R) by their name?" Really all you need to know.
- As I was going to say- good luck with that one.
Yay! I will have a garbage plate in Joe Morelle's honor the next time I am in Rochester.
(Although I do admit, I was probably gonna order the plate regardless)
Good luck getting ~~-2/3-~~ 3/4 of the states to ratify it.
- 3/4 for amendments, actually.
  
  That's even harder.
- I'd hope this ruling would inspire the need, but I won't hold my breath.
Nothing pisses off congress more than having to do something and vote on legislation. Supreme Court made an enemy.
This is the way.
this is a gimme. You show you're willing to pass laws to reign them in.
Military must refuse illegal orders... I don't think it's that simple. Maybe if he goes on a one president killing spree, but ordering people to do illegal things doesn't mean they are immediately going to do illegal things, especially when they are not criminally immune
- Problem is not everyone in the military is a constitutional scholar. What happens if part of the military believes it's their duty to follow the President's order (since they judge it to be a legal order) while another part of the military believes it's their duty to not follow an order (since they judge it to be illegal)?
  This ruling is laying the groundwork for a civil war.
  
  We're not exactly more than a couple steps away from the SCOTUS saying that if you can't prosecute official acts, then ipso facto it must also extend to those enforcing the acts.
I'll believe it when I see it.
- Do you not believe they're preparing an amendment, or do you not believe it will pass?
  
  I think they'll sabotage it or compromise it so much it will be meaningless like the Dems always do.
Yup this is the way to do it too. It needs to be part of the Constitution to override this "interpretation".
repeal the 2nd while you at it
Say this gets passed, and it's signed. Forget the higher bar for an amendment. It will get challenged and end up in front of the very same court.
The system has an inherent flaw that was not anticipated by the Founders. Smart, legal people need to get into 4D puzzle-solving mode.
- This isn't a law that has to be signed but a constitutional amendment that has to be ratified by a certain number of states.
For years the Supreme Court had a liberal majority and now that they don't, they claim every decision they make is the end of the world and they want to lock everyone up and stack the courts. This is just more of the same
- They just made bribes legal and made the president above the law.
- Because the liberal Supreme Court largely supported democracy, while the conservative one isn't even trying to hide its promotion of fascism. There is no both sides here
- Reversing decades of settled law in multiple rulings is not "more of the same". Lie to yourself, don't lie to those of us with open eyes.
- The Supreme Court hasn't had a liberal majority since the 80s. The difference is that until the Trump appointments, the nakedly partisan political hacks were a minority on the court.

173 comments