Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TheBiggerFish]

So we can't keep him from being elected but we can impeach him when he is elected.

And then we get to make a nice joke about "You're fired!"

At least, so far.

[Loud Whispers]

Wait, it's not even legit? Got my hopes up that something awesome was happening

[Strife26]

What? You'd it to be a requirement that someone find a President to be a good choice for President before they can be President?

[Frumple]

[snip]

Oh, that's by and large true, yes. Never actually been done on those grounds, so far as I can recall, but it'd probably be fair dos for an attempt. Just wouldn't prevent the hypothetical initial election.

[smjjames]

Wait, it's not even legit? Got my hopes up that something awesome was happening

Legally and before he actually becomes elected, no. What Flying Dice said is the closest one gets to legal matters here when saying he is disqualified because he (appears) to not intend to follow the constitution when he becomes president.

[wierd]

Yo Dawg, I hear you like your presidents to swear oaths of being presidents!

So, we put a presidential oath in your presidential election process, you can have a presidential president while you have a president!

[mainiac]

Can we have a precedent for our presidential president setting a precedent about being a precedent setting presidential president?

[Frumple]

The possibility may presently present itself, given prudence on the part of the presidential polity.

[Loud Whispers]

Wait, it's not even legit? Got my hopes up that something awesome was happening

Legally and before he actually becomes elected, no. What Flying Dice said is the closest one gets to legal matters here when saying he is disqualified because he (appears) to not intend to follow the constitution when he becomes president.

Is this any different from the peeps saying Obama hasn't followed the constitution?

[wierd]

"Like a bad neighbor, D. Trump don't care! (about the constitution."

[smjjames]

Wait, it's not even legit? Got my hopes up that something awesome was happening

Legally and before he actually becomes elected, no. What Flying Dice said is the closest one gets to legal matters here when saying he is disqualified because he (appears) to not intend to follow the constitution when he becomes president.

Is this any different from the peeps saying Obama hasn't followed the constitution?

Not really since those people were complaining about Obama using executive powers to bypass congress, violating one of the amendments is another level entirely.

Well, people are arguing over Obama with technicalities; Trump has promised to violate the Constitution with a pool cue. In full.

Exactly. Obama hasn't outright violated the constitution, I don't know if Trump has actually said he'll violate the constitution with a pool cue in full, but his rhetoric does violate the constitution.

[Loud Whispers]

Well, people are arguing over Obama with technicalities; Trump has promised to violate the Constitution with a pool cue. In full.

Not really since those people were complaining about Obama using executive powers to bypass congress, violating one of the amendments is another level entirely.
Exactly. Obama hasn't outright violated the constitution, I don't know if Trump has actually said he'll violate the constitution with a pool cue in full, but his rhetoric does violate the constitution.

They don't say their gripes are technicalities they say outright violations

[Strife26]

He used executive action to bypass the fact that Congress was doing fuckall to deal with a serious situation. He didn't make anything law, but cleaned up a situation until Congress got its shit together. Their response, of course, was "how could you! You bypassed our ability to screw you over by going around and putting the onus on us! That's against the constitution!" rather than actually deal with the problem now put squarely on their plate.

As for whether it actually violates the Constitution, I doubt it.

He's ordered American citizens assassinated without trial on legal justification that's never been shown to anyone.

Not that I disagree with it, but there's certainly arguments that that's against more than a few items.

[TheBiggerFish]

He what now?

[Descan]

Drone attacks.