| National
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |
|
|
|
443805 |
|
|
Date: November 06, 2024 at 22:21:06
From: ryan, [DNS_Address]
Subject: a divine scenario... |
|
|
somehow the dims win the house...
rump and jd both die of something...
since jeffies is the new speaker, he becomes president...
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443836] [443841] [443844] [443856] [443858] [443926] |
|
443836 |
|
|
Date: November 07, 2024 at 10:17:26
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a divine scenario... |
|
|
There is still the rumor that JD is planning to unseat
Trump himself using the 25th amendment and have his own
little coup.
If THAT happens, he'll probably try to repeal the 19th
amendment that gives women the vote. Birth control will
be outlawed too. Of course, they'll continue to try to
do that even under trump.
It'll be interesting to watch, in that way that a slow-
mo coverage of a horrible disaster in action is
interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443841] [443844] [443856] [443858] [443926] |
|
443841 |
|
|
Date: November 07, 2024 at 10:51:57
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a divine scenario... |
|
|
the only way an amendment can be repealed is by creating a new amendment,
and that has to be ratified by 3/4 of the states. ain't happening
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443844] [443856] [443858] [443926] |
|
443844 |
|
|
Date: November 07, 2024 at 11:05:26
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: a divine scenario... |
|
|
You're talking about a new president and
administration, especially if they have majorities in
all three branches of government, who do not respect
the constitution and vowed to rewrite it.
And if the Supreme court does get off their ass and
tell them they can't do it, he's most likely to give
them an old Andrew Jackson line and tell them to let
them enforce it if they can, and do it anyway.
These people do not care.
These people have already shown they are lawless.
Trump will believe he has full immunity to do whatever
he wants.
The next impeachment will have to come from his own
party run legislature. Good luck with that, we know
they have no spine.
You're under the mistaken impression they think the
rules apply to them.
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443856] [443858] [443926] |
|
443856 |
|
|
Date: November 07, 2024 at 13:21:31
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: states have to ratify |
URL: https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution |
|
you're fear mongering
excerpt
"The Archivist submits the proposed amendment to the States for their
consideration by sending a letter of notification to each Governor along with the
informational material prepared by the OFR. The Governors then formally submit
the amendment to their State legislatures or the state calls for a convention,
depending on what Congress has specified. In the past, some State legislatures
have not waited to receive official notice before taking action on a proposed
amendment. When a State ratifies a proposed amendment, it sends the Archivist
an original or certified copy of the State action, which is immediately conveyed to
the Director of the Federal Register. The OFR examines ratification documents for
facial legal sufficiency and an authenticating signature. If the documents are
found to be in good order, the Director acknowledges receipt and maintains
custody of them. The OFR retains these documents until an amendment is
adopted or fails, and then transfers the records to the National Archives for
preservation.
A proposed amendment becomes part of the Constitution as soon as it is ratified
by three-fourths of the States (38 of 50 States). When the OFR verifies that it has
received the required number of authenticated ratification documents, it drafts a
formal proclamation for the Archivist to certify that the amendment is valid and
has become part of the Constitution. This certification is published in the Federal
Register and U.S. Statutes at Large and serves as official notice to the Congress
and to the Nation that the amendment process has been completed."
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443858] [443926] |
|
443858 |
|
|
Date: November 07, 2024 at 13:27:51
From: Redhart, [DNS_Address]
Subject: Re: states have to ratify |
|
|
I understand the law and constitution.
I'm saying these people have shown in the past they
don't, nor do they care. And if they make "executive
orders" that are unconstitutional, who's going to stop
them?
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
[443926] |
|
443926 |
|
|
Date: November 08, 2024 at 17:51:28
From: akira, [DNS_Address]
Subject: a president can't ratify an amendment with an EO |
|
|
|
It wouldn't be enforceable
|
|
|
|
|
Responses:
None |
|
[
National ] [ Main Menu ] |