Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Federalist Society co-founder says Trump’s tweet about postponing the election is grounds for ‘immediate impeachment’
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federalist-trump-tweet-election-delay-impeachment
Federalist Society co-founder Stephen Calabresi said that President Trump’s tweet suggesting to postpone the election is “fascistic” and “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment.”
“Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist,” Calabresi wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. “But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”
Calabresi noted that he has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including for Trump in 2016. He said he had defended the president against the Mueller investigation and against the impeachment investigation.
The Federalist Society is an influential conservative and libertarian organization that advocates for textualist and originalist interpretation of the Consitutiton.
“Election Day was fixed by a federal law passed in 1845, and the Constitution itself in the 20th Amendment specifies that the newly elected Congress meet at noon on Jan. 3, 2021, and that the terms of the president and vice president end at noon on Jan. 20, 2021.”
Calabresi called on every Republican in Congress to tell Trump he can’t postpone the election. Otherwise, he said they “should never be elected to Congress again.”...
...Trump, [who tweeted “ Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???]' when pressed on the charge, denied he had thoughts of delaying the election, saying, “[w]hy would I do that?”
Hasn't everything been grounds for impeachment with you guys?
What to you mean "you guys." This was written by a man who not only voted for Trump, but defended him against both the Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation.
And, yes, this conman should've been impeached and removed from office long ago. We should ALL want this. That there is still a section of America who defend him at every turn is, frankly, disgusting.
As the National Review said this week: “What is the Republican Party, and what does it wish to be: the Party of Lincoln; or the Party of Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Fox News, “deep state” kookery, etc.? It is going to have to pick one, because it cannot be both of those things at the same time.”
why do you assume that those that are not democrat and dont condemn trumps every act are republican? I know a lot of people that dont care for the actions of the republicans all that much ( myself included) , but still prefer what Trump wants over the direction the democrat party candidates/ring leaders are pushing for.
What are you referring to? The quote from the National Review?
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ MaroonBells said:
@ AGRforever said:
@ MaroonBells said:
Federalist Society co-founder says Trump’s tweet about postponing the election is grounds for ‘immediate impeachment’
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federalist-trump-tweet-election-delay-impeachment
Federalist Society co-founder Stephen Calabresi said that President Trump’s tweet suggesting to postpone the election is “fascistic” and “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment.”
“Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist,” Calabresi wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. “But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”
Calabresi noted that he has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including for Trump in 2016. He said he had defended the president against the Mueller investigation and against the impeachment investigation.
The Federalist Society is an influential conservative and libertarian organization that advocates for textualist and originalist interpretation of the Consitutiton.
“Election Day was fixed by a federal law passed in 1845, and the Constitution itself in the 20th Amendment specifies that the newly elected Congress meet at noon on Jan. 3, 2021, and that the terms of the president and vice president end at noon on Jan. 20, 2021.”
Calabresi called on every Republican in Congress to tell Trump he can’t postpone the election. Otherwise, he said they “should never be elected to Congress again.”...
...Trump, [who tweeted “ Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???]' when pressed on the charge, denied he had thoughts of delaying the election, saying, “[w]hy would I do that?”
Hasn't everything been grounds for impeachment with you guys?
What to you mean "you guys." This was written by a man who not only voted for Trump, but defended him against both the Mueller investigation and the impeachment investigation.
And, yes, this conman should've been impeached and removed from office long ago. We should ALL want this. That there is still a section of America who defend him at every turn is, frankly, disgusting.
As the National Review said this week: “What is the Republican Party, and what does it wish to be: the Party of Lincoln; or the Party of Donald Trump, Roger Stone, Fox News, “deep state” kookery, etc.? It is going to have to pick one, because it cannot be both of those things at the same time.”
why do you assume that those that are not democrat and dont condemn trumps every act are republican? I know a lot of people that dont care for the actions of the republicans all that much ( myself included) , but still prefer what Trump wants over the direction the democrat party candidates/ring leaders are pushing for.
What are you referring to? The quote from the National Review?
yep, my bad, i mis read it on my phone... getting old eyes sucks.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Absolutely, but also very aware the framers meant the document to to be dynamic.
Define dynamic.
If by dynamic, you mean rarely changed (lol), I agree. =)
How to Amend the Constitution ( Link)
Amending the Constitution was never meant to be simple. Although thousands of amendments have been discussed since the original document was approved in 1788, there are now only 27 amendments in the Constitution.
Though its framers knew the Constitution would have to be amended, they also knew it should never be amended frivolously or haphazardly. Clearly, their process for amending the Constitution has succeeded in meeting that goal.
Well aware of this, they gave us the tools to do it, left it up to future generations to determine how difficult it would be. I have never read anything by Madison saying what they started was supposed to be forever, that's what they were revolting against. I think in their time they were very progressive not conservative. The constitution was a blueprint written when the average age was 35 and white folk could own black folk greatest fear for a government was a standing army and used militias for the protection of "The" State.
Trump is pulling a page of Nixon's playbook back in the late 60s trying to scare white people into thinking cities aren't safe and sending agents in to places like Chicago. He certainly hates democratic cities with women mayors.
"Chicago is worse than Afghanistan'.....what a joke.
Quote: @StickyBun said:
Trump is pulling a page of Nixon's playbook back in the late 60s trying to scare white people into thinking cities aren't safe and sending agents in to places like Chicago. He certainly hates democratic cities with women mayors.
"Chicago is worse than Afghanistan'.....what a joke.
I've said this countless times now...2020 is the closest to 68/69 I've seen since - well 68/69.
Quote: @purplefaithful said:
@ StickyBun said:
Trump is pulling a page of Nixon's playbook back in the late 60s trying to scare white people into thinking cities aren't safe and sending agents in to places like Chicago. He certainly hates democratic cities with women mayors.
"Chicago is worse than Afghanistan'.....what a joke.
I've said this countless times now...2020 is the closest to 68/69 I've seen since - well 68/69.
I think it's worse. I think given the perspective of time, we'll look back on 2020 as the most violent, chaotic and fearful time in our history. Protests (if not riots) in almost every city in America, a pandemic, subsiding in most countries, raging out of control in ours due to incompetent leadership, an economic downturn greater than even the Great Depression, and fears that this "leader" and his followers will not accept election results. WTF happened to this country?
Steve Schmidt sums it up succinctly.
Donald Trump has been the worst president this country has ever had. And I don't say that hyperbolically. He is. But he is a consequential president. And he has brought this country in three short years to a place of weakness that is simply unimaginable if you were pondering where we are today from the day where Barack Obama left office. And there were a lot of us on that day who were deeply skeptical and very worried about what a Trump presidency would be. But this is a moment of unparalleled national humiliation, of weakness.
"When you listen to the President, these are the musings of an imbecile. An idiot. And I don't use those words to name call. I use them because they are the precise words of the English language to describe his behavior. His comportment. His actions. We've never seen a level of incompetence, a level of ineptitude so staggering on a daily basis by anybody in the history of the country whose ever been charged with substantial responsibilities.
"It's just astonishing that this man is president of the United States. The man, the con man, from New York City. Many bankruptcies, failed businesses, a reality show, that branded him as something that he never was. A successful businessman. Well, he's the President of the United States now, and the man who said he would make the country great again. And he's brought death, suffering, and economic collapse on truly an epic scale. And let's be clear. This isn't happening in every country around the world. This place. Our place. Our home. Our country. The United States. We are the epicenter. We are the place where you're the most likely to die from this disease. We're the ones with the most shattered economy. And we are because of the fool that sits in the Oval Office behind the Resolute Desk."
Quote: @MaroonBells said:
Federalist Society co-founder says Trump’s tweet about postponing the election is grounds for ‘immediate impeachment’
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/federal...mpeachment
Federalist Society co-founder Stephen Calabresi said that President Trump’s tweet suggesting to postpone the election is “fascistic” and “grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment.”
“Until recently, I had taken as political hyperbole the Democrats’ assertion that President Trump is a fascist,” Calabresi wrote in an op-ed for the New York Times. “But this latest tweet is fascistic and is itself grounds for the president’s immediate impeachment again by the House of Representatives and his removal from office by the Senate.”
Calabresi noted that he has voted Republican in every presidential election since 1980, including for Trump in 2016. He said he had defended the president against the Mueller investigation and against the impeachment investigation.
The Federalist Society is an influential conservative and libertarian organization that advocates for textualist and originalist interpretation of the Consitutiton.
“Election Day was fixed by a passed in 1845, and the Constitution itself in the 20th Amendment specifies that the newly elected Congress meet at noon on Jan. 3, 2021, and that the terms of the president and vice president end at noon on Jan. 20, 2021.”
Calabresi called on every Republican in Congress to tell Trump he can’t postpone the election. Otherwise, he said they “should never be elected to Congress again.”...
...Trump, [who tweeted “ Delay the Election until people can properly, securely and safely vote???]' when pressed on the charge, denied he had thoughts of delaying the election, saying, “[w]hy would I do that?”
You quoted FoxNews and the Federalist to support your point?
Oh, never mind. :p :p :p
I will say.....Steven Calabresi IS A GIANT (to me) but I think he missed the obvious Trump tweet/troll....I alluded to above (the HRC "news" that Trump wouldn't leave)".
Trump was not "serious". (and as I posted/agreed with AGR, if Trump WAS serious, I would be right there saying with AGR saying "treason"...well, not treason, but sedition)
Trump confirmed that, at the end quote at the end of your post..."when pressed on the charge, denied he had thoughts of delaying the election, saying, “[w]hy would I do that?”
So Calabresi "fell for it". He should know better. These are times not-suited to the meek.
We'll see if he actually votes for Biden.
Mark Levin served alongside Calabresi (as very young men) in the Reagan/Meese(DOJ) administration.
https://twitter.com/marklevinshow/status...7352805376
You know what I like? It seems (year after year) the only stimulating debate happens on the right.
Q: Think about it....when is the last time a liberal SCOTUS judge shocked us on a decision?
(John Roberts shocks US, once a month)
Q: When is the last time a significant Democrat challenged party orthodoxy?
A: I stand to be corrected, but for forever.
(Some liberal that can recall an example of a significant intra-party split....let me know/post)
Healthy intellectual debate resides only amongst conservatives. This thread is proof.
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ savannahskol said:
@ BigAl99 said:
Absolutely, but also very aware the framers meant the document to to be dynamic.
Define dynamic.
If by dynamic, you mean rarely changed (lol), I agree. =)
How to Amend the Constitution ( Link)
Amending the Constitution was never meant to be simple. Although thousands of amendments have been discussed since the original document was approved in 1788, there are now only 27 amendments in the Constitution.
Though its framers knew the Constitution would have to be amended, they also knew it should never be amended frivolously or haphazardly. Clearly, their process for amending the Constitution has succeeded in meeting that goal.
Well aware of this, they gave us the tools to do it, left it up to future generations to determine how difficult it would be.
Yes, they did "give us the tools to do it."
The tools?
Authority to Amend the U.S. Constitution
Article V of the United States Constitution outlines basic procedures for constitutional amendment.
- Congress may submit a proposed constitutional amendment to the states, if the proposed amendment language is approved by a two-thirds vote of both houses.
- Congress must call a convention for proposing amendments upon application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states (i.e., 34 of 50 states).
- Amendments proposed by Congress or convention become valid only when ratified by the legislatures of, or conventions in, three-fourths of the states (i.e., 38 of 50 states).
No....they "didn't leave it up to future generations to determine how difficult it would be."
THEY SPECIFICALLY FOUNDED THAT CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION WOULD BE DIFFICULT. NON-DYNAMIC.
I have never read anything by Madison saying what they started was supposed to be forever, that's what they were revolting against.
Yeah. If I didn't know better, you're supporting the wisdom of the main architect of the constitution.
Not bad for a slave-holder, eh? 
I think in their time they were very progressive not conservative.
& I think you're mis-using the modern terms "progressive and conservative" to a time when those terms held drastically different meanings.
The constitution was a blueprint written when the average age was 35 and white folk could own black folk greatest fear for a government was a standing army and used militias for the protection of "The" State.
I think that salient point more supports my observations, than yours.
Thanks for the give/take, BigAl.
Quote: @savannahskol said:
Trump was not "serious..." Calabresi’s op-ed is so dumb, but the crackpot left and Trump-haters love it. And that was its obvious purpose.
LOL. Ah yes, the old "he was joking" defense, played well right next to the old standby "he meant to do that and you fell for it" gag. Love it! Are you here all week? And, yes, I already tipped them.
Is the GOP dead?
After Mitt Romney lost the 2012 presidential race, the Republican National Committee chairman, Reince Priebus, commissioned an internal party study to examine why the party had won the popular vote only once since 1988.
The results of that so-called autopsy were fairly obvious: The party needed to appeal to more people of color, reach out to younger voters, become more welcoming to women. Those conclusions were presented as not only a political necessity but also a moral mandate if the Republican Party were to be a governing party in a rapidly changing America.
Then Donald Trump emerged and the party threw all those conclusions out the window with an almost audible sigh of relief: Thank God we can win without pretending we really care about this stuff. That reaction was sadly predictable.
I spent decades working to elect Republicans, including Mr. Romney and four other presidential candidates, and I am here to bear reluctant witness that Mr. Trump didn’t hijack the Republican Party. He is the logical conclusion of what the party became over the past 50 or so years, a natural product of the seeds of race-baiting, self-deception and anger that now dominate it. Hold Donald Trump up to a mirror and that bulging, scowling orange face is today’s Republican Party.
![[Image: 28Stevens-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&au...le=upscale]](https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/07/28/opinion/28Stevens/28Stevens-articleLarge.jpg?quality=75&auto=webp&disable=upscale)
I saw the warning signs but ignored them and chose to believe what I wanted to believe: The party wasn’t just a white grievance party; there was still a big tent; the others guys were worse. Many of us in the party saw this dark side and told ourselves it was a recessive gene. We were wrong. It turned out to be the dominant gene.
|
