Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)
4. No authority
Mon Feb 11, 2019, 09:29 PM
Feb 2019

There is no one person, no organization, and no branch of government to do this. And anyone who tries would be vastly exceeding their authority. They'd be arrested immediately.

Nope. manor321 Feb 2019 #1
I guess my question is why should we limit ourselves to "normal legislative functioning" to Atticus Feb 2019 #6
Because government by fiat is insanity Codeine Feb 2019 #75
"Government by fiat"? No reasonably intelligent honest person could so characterize Atticus Feb 2019 #78
No, that's pretty much the precise definition Codeine Feb 2019 #81
You seem content to battle straw men so I will leave you to it. Have a good one. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #83
It's pretty clear what he is advocating dumbcat Feb 2019 #90
Hear, hear. Too many people--even here at DU--seem to think the old cliche is true-- First Speaker Feb 2019 #2
Because he is, unfortunately, legitimate. Codeine Feb 2019 #72
Only the Supreme Court could have power to do this if a suit came before them, but Liberty Belle Feb 2019 #3
So, the fact that an illegitimate POTUS ignored precedent, custom and decency to skew the SCOTUS Atticus Feb 2019 #11
They would have to recuse the Trump appointees since the ruling would effect them directly world wide wally Feb 2019 #15
Who is "they"? jberryhill Feb 2019 #33
The judges themselves world wide wally Feb 2019 #36
Nixon's SC appointees didn't recuse themselves Polybius Feb 2019 #55
Congress could impeach (and should). Liberty Belle Feb 2019 #99
Nothing in the Constitution specifies the makeup of the Supreme Court. bluescribbler Feb 2019 #86
It leaves it up to the Congress dumbcat Feb 2019 #92
The SECOND Democrats have the numbers, the ability, the court MUST be increased so Eliot Rosewater Feb 2019 #102
No authority zipplewrath Feb 2019 #4
No one had "authority" to toss that tea into Boston Harbor either, but doing so sure brought about Atticus Feb 2019 #12
So, are you advocating rebellion dumbcat Feb 2019 #42
Oh, absolutely! That's exactly what that post means! NT Atticus Feb 2019 #45
That's what the folks tossing the tea were doing dumbcat Feb 2019 #46
No, he wants to go to Long Beach and throw some shipping containers into the harbor jberryhill Feb 2019 #77
I like your passion and concern. What you are saying is why are we going to play by the Eliot Rosewater Feb 2019 #103
So you want a violent revolution? zipplewrath Feb 2019 #62
I like your thinking, Atticus leftieNanner Feb 2019 #5
Robert Reich Suggested an Annulment a Few Months Back dlk Feb 2019 #7
I'm all for it ProudLib72 Feb 2019 #8
Good luck with amending it. Codeine Feb 2019 #73
No, I don't think it's likely to happen ProudLib72 Feb 2019 #97
The birthers had the same ridiculous idea during the Obama admin. jberryhill Feb 2019 #9
So, amending the Constitution is a "ridiculous idea"? Really? Atticus Feb 2019 #14
Oh, I see, you are going to get 3/4 of the states to ratify this jberryhill Feb 2019 #16
Sorry you feel "harangued". nt Atticus Feb 2019 #23
Roosevelt threatened to add what? Nine more Supreme Court justices when they refused to play ball? pecosbob Feb 2019 #10
Um, Roosevelt did not get what he wanted frazzled Feb 2019 #28
I should have phrased that differently...he did not get new justices pecosbob Feb 2019 #29
I always found it odd that the SC completely reversed itself for FDR Polybius Feb 2019 #56
Everything I've read said that their opinions changed over time pecosbob Feb 2019 #59
um, he did get what he wanted shanny Feb 2019 #41
Not because of his attempt to pack the courts frazzled Feb 2019 #49
That's not the whole story. shanny Feb 2019 #50
"By 1941 ..." frazzled Feb 2019 #51
"within weeks" shanny Feb 2019 #53
So you think we should just arbitrarily ignore PoindexterOglethorpe Feb 2019 #13
"---arbitrarily ignore the Constitution and the rule of law?" Disagree with what I wrote if you Atticus Feb 2019 #18
Essentially that's what you want to do, even if you aren't wording it that way. PoindexterOglethorpe Feb 2019 #32
Could you point out where I proposed annulment as a way to REMOVE a president? Atticus Feb 2019 #37
The wording is a cinch jberryhill Feb 2019 #19
My, my! I thought you were AGAINST "haranguing people on the internet!" nt Atticus Feb 2019 #26
No. This is one of the low points in the history of the Presidency. We did this. Squinch Feb 2019 #17
I never meant that we scrub Trump from our history books. You are right that we should Atticus Feb 2019 #21
I do hope the next president gets some task force together to examine everything and Squinch Feb 2019 #22
" New statutes COULD be passed and signed into law." And? AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #20
"That is a fact" as long as we allow it to be. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #24
No...that would be up to SCOTUS...I bet it would be 9-0 against you AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #104
I feel much the same way. honest.abe Feb 2019 #25
If the US Constitution is the official blueprint for what is possible, guillaumeb Feb 2019 #27
Oh, God, please make it stop. DavidDvorkin Feb 2019 #30
Count me in!! blueinredohio Feb 2019 #31
I agree with the concept a hundred percent. NanceGreggs Feb 2019 #34
Thank you for your thoughtful response. In general, the law will not allow someone to benefit from Atticus Feb 2019 #39
The authors did forsee this problem zipplewrath Feb 2019 #65
Trying to understand the logic behind annulling all the legislation. MichMan Feb 2019 #35
This message was self-deleted by its author Atticus Feb 2019 #47
Trump didn't pass any legislation, they did MichMan Feb 2019 #52
I am sorry. That response was meant for another post. I have deleted it. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #54
We have a chance to send that cretin packing in a mere twenty one months. DemocratSinceBirth Feb 2019 #38
Smiled at the "young man" remark as I just turned 70. And, contrary to "conventional wiisdom", Atticus Feb 2019 #43
It's actually a good idea ck4829 Feb 2019 #40
I guess that if you can just throw out the Constitution and laws, so can Trump? brooklynite Feb 2019 #44
It helps to read what was actually posted before turning to your usual snark. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #48
"The Trump "presidency" doesn't just need to be ended--- it needs to be "anulled" in most respects." brooklynite Feb 2019 #60
I suggested construing the Constitution in a new way, amending the Constitution and enacting new Atticus Feb 2019 #63
How do you expect to do this? Polybius Feb 2019 #57
Yes. Let's stop with the legalisms- dawg day Feb 2019 #58
"When a team has been shown to have cheated in a basketball game, they forfeit the game" brooklynite Feb 2019 #61
I won't be flaming away on you because I arthritisR_US Feb 2019 #64
You realize the process of amending Codeine Feb 2019 #66
Our definitions of "legitimate" could hardly be more disparate. Let's each do what is "doable" Atticus Feb 2019 #67
My definition is based in reality. Codeine Feb 2019 #68
What you term "magical thinking" is at least as viable as the "resigned acceptance" which Atticus Feb 2019 #69
It has nothing whatever to do with Codeine Feb 2019 #71
Legal frameworks and processes do not fall from the sky fully formed. They are CREATED--- Atticus Feb 2019 #82
Agree! Totally annulled, including dismissal of all judges appointed. ananda Feb 2019 #70
By what Constitutional process Codeine Feb 2019 #74
The Constitution COULD be used for toilet paper and flushed down to the sewer, LongtimeAZDem Feb 2019 #76
Somewhere, the trolls are smiling. nt Atticus Feb 2019 #84
The only trolling is your OP. The wole notion is as ridiculous as Trump's "national emergency" idea. LongtimeAZDem Feb 2019 #101
I agree with the sentiment Apollyonus Feb 2019 #79
And it will be dismissed again. Why? Because you can't do that. MineralMan Feb 2019 #80
Trump will be dead and some of his appointees as well before an amendment would be ratified. LakeSuperiorView Feb 2019 #85
Please outline, in detail, the process by which what you suggest could be legally done. WillowTree Feb 2019 #87
No. Have you even read the posts in this thread? nt Atticus Feb 2019 #88
Every one, as a matter of fact. If you're so sure it COULD be done, please provide specifics. WillowTree Feb 2019 #89
Please point out where I said I was SURE of anything. Is that the new standard: don't propose Atticus Feb 2019 #91
You're the one who stated unequivocally in your opening post that those things COULD be done. WillowTree Feb 2019 #95
"could"---past tense of "can"; "used to indicate POSSIBILITY" (my emphasis)------not "certainty". n Atticus Feb 2019 #96
Exactly. It's all magical thinking Codeine Feb 2019 #93
The basis for annulment fails sarisataka Feb 2019 #94
Could a new President Mr.Bill Feb 2019 #98
Yes...like the Dumpster has reversed many of President Obama's EO's. AncientGeezer Feb 2019 #105
Annulment is one path. David Letterman suggested a different one a while ago. Josiesdad Feb 2019 #100
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»I have suggested this bef...»Reply #4