A leading House Democrat is preparing a constitutional amendment in response to the Supreme Court’s landmark immunity ruling, seeking to reverse the decision “and ensure that no president is above the law.”

Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, sent a letter to colleagues informing them of his intent to file the resolution, which would kickstart what’s traditionally a cumbersome amendment process.

“This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do — prioritize our democracy,” Morelle said in a statement to AP.

It’s the most significant legislative response yet to the decision this week from the court’s conservative majority, which stunned Washington and drew a sharp dissent from the court’s liberal justices warning of the perils to democracy, particularly as Trump seeks a return to the White House. Still, the effort stands almost no chance of succeeding in this Congress.

  • twistypencil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    3 days ago

    You realize immunity doesn’t mean declare what you want, and you get it?

    Also It’s not illegal for Biden to say he is invalidating his immunity powers, it’s just meaningless. Now if he punched Stormy Daniel’s until she agreed to give syphilis to the court, that might be illegal acts that fall under his official duties.

    Also, you need the courts behind whatever illegal thing you are going to do.

    • sudo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      3 days ago
      1. Declare new rules
      2. Use any method, legal or otherwise, to enforce said rules
      3. Claim immunity

      Congratulations. You’ve successfully used immunity to declare whatever you want.

      • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 day ago

        Immunity is for crimes which is explicitly about breaking the rules, it’s not about making up new rules.

        • sudo@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 hours ago

          And that’s why immunity was step 3, and making up new rules was step 1. Please refer to the steps if you have any more questions.

          • SpaceCowboy@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            19 hours ago

            I didn’t ask a question. Please refer to the single sentence I wrote if you have any more questions about how your first two steps have nothing to do with immunity from criminal prosecution.

    • Carrolade@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 days ago

      The idea that you actually need courts behind you is laughable. Power is enforced through the threat of violence, this is how law enforcement functions. Courts do not have soldiers.

      Know who does? Commander-in-Chief, now with full immunity for any official act, like, giving orders to the military.

      One could say perhaps the soldiers themselves would be afraid of prosecution and would disobey orders, since they don’t get immunity. Until the President pardons them anyway.

      Otherwise only one last line of firm defense remains: the oath each serviceman takes to defend the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. That might make someone disobey an illegal order.

      • twistypencil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        You need to have the military behind you and ready to do illegal things. When sworn to refuse illegal orders, this may not be so ready to go

      • zephyr@lemmy.today
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 days ago

        There’s a quote from Andrew Jackson when he ignored the Court where he basically told them to enforce their decisions themselves.

    • Snapz@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 days ago

      You realize, no…

      Immunity here means declare whatever you want, and then mandate that the military eliminate anyone who opposes your new mandate. This “fun” hypothetical is a president invalidating their immunity powers and then having that decree reinforced by death, that second part is the illegal you want in this equation.

      It’s done to “Save America”, so it’s an official act.

      “If a president couldn’t freely do rapes, bribes, frauds and incite violence without repercussions, who would way to be president?”

      • one of the two candidates for US President probably