Determined by who? Ultimately, anything can be challenged and eventually finds its way to the SC.
Understand that we just had a SCJ argue that allegiance to a country was determined by breaking that country’s laws.
"I was thinking, you know, I’m a U.S. citizen and visiting Japan and what it means is that, you know, if I steal someone’s wallet in Japan, the Japanese authorities can arrest me and prosecute me," Jackson said during Wednesday’s oral arguments centered on President Trump’s 2025 executive order advancing a narrower interpretation of the 14th Amendment’s citizenship clause.
“It’s allegiance, meaning, they can control you as a matter of law. I can also rely on them if my wallet is stolen to, you know, under Japanese law, go and prosecute the person who has stolen it. So there’s this relationship based on, even though I’m a temporary traveler, I’m just on vacation in Japan, I’m still locally owing allegiance in that sense. Is that the right way to think about it? And if so, doesn’t that explain why both temporary residents and undocumented people would have that kind of, quote-unquote, allegiance, just by virtue of being in the United States?”"
You named Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter who were like any other active conservatives. The only reason they aren’t active conservatives is they are all dead, ie, “were”.
The Constitution “determines” how the Electoral College is set up and it’s very existence. I’m sure you’re aware that it requires an amendment to change stuff in the Constitution. SCOTUS doesn’t have shit to do with it. Like I said, the Constitution spells out four ways to amend it, and going through SCOTUS is not listed. This applies to the Electoral College being done away with specifically, other stuff can enter that legal gray area where SCOTUS gets involved (i.e. the RKBA). Interpretation of the 2A can unfortunately be left to the courts. I don’t agree with it, but it happens. However, to outright get rid of the 2A would require one of those amendments.
All four of the ways to amend the Constitution ultimately involve 3/4 of the states. No fvcking way 38 states (it’s actually 37.5 but since there is no half-state it goes to 38) vote to do away with either the Electoral College or the 2A.
Here we go with your fvcking semantic games again. Being dead has nothing to do with it. They became liberals by the way they voted on the SCOTUS. I don’t GAF what they were before their nomination, the proof (true colors if you will) is their voting record on the SCOTUS.
I thought i had missed something, but it’s still .gov only.
So looks like it is possible to amend the Constiution with a simple legislative majority vote and a handy New York democrat which, interestingly enough, is roughly the same thing keeping it amended.
The SC rules what the constitution means, period. The SC has ruled that the Constitution protects abortion. They recently ruled that it doesn’t. Ketanji and a packed court of like minds would tell you in no uncertain terms that the US Constitution says what we say it does… and that’s that.
It’s one thing to “interpret” what the 2A means (even though we all know what it means), it’s another entirely to say the Electoral College is done away with. There is no interpreting that, it is what it is. Hell, it isn’t even an amendment. It is in Article II, Section 1. The SCOTUS wouldn’t be hearing a case on throwing it out, they’d likely be hearing challenges to attempts to circumvent the EC by these gay little “compacts”. Now if the commies packed the court, sure it would come into play with regards to the EC by deciding cases like I just mentioned. What they wouldn’t do, however, is throw the EC out of the Constitution. They can’t. Their hypothetical decision might allow for chicanery, even enough to make the EC irrelevant, but it wouldn’t remove it.
Mufuckin’ Ketanji is not a high bar at all to compare to. Yes, a bunch of retarded ghetto lawyers or SPLC-types [now looking for a job], or maybe even a Boasberg nominated to a packed court would be disastrous for us. They wouldn’t have to have the brightest legal minds, just be a commie devotee with a pulse.
But it isn’t equivalent. It can be twisted and sold to the moronic public as such, but it hasn’t amended a g-damn thing technically. In reality-land? Yeah, I might agree, but with you I will split hairs anyway.
BTW, you still haven’t answered what party or entity is your suggestion to fix things. Who you would choose or like to see chosen, since you obviously hate Republicans and [I hope] Demoshits too. Tell us what/who the answer is.
As near as I can tell there are many more mentions by the founders about armed citizens and what that meant than the electoral college so if they can claim the 2A isn’t crystal clear the elctoral college should be a cinch to concoct stories about.
As far text in the body of the Constitution goes, the same crowd has claimed this one is open to interpretation:
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President”
As a whole, i don’t view many upper tier democrats and republicans as really being any different. Pro wrestlers are more likely to be legitimately adversaries.
If candidate(D) and candidate(R) have nearly identical histories then citizens will lose anyway so there is nothing to lose by trying something different.
Or at least don’t add an air of righteousness to a shitty person by lauding them.
Virginia Governor Spanberger signed an assault weapons ban into law. Effective July 1 the Virginia governor and legislature have made the exercise of your constitutionally protected God-given rights a Class 1 misdemeanor. Lawsuits already filed.
