Are the democrats trying to lose?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

No President or Party has ever abused the Constitution like the Stable Genius

For someone who chastises others for not knowing what you refer to as "history," you display a blatant ignorance of it. Other Presidents in the past have abused the Constitution far worse than anything you claim "the Stable Genius" has done. Try FDR for one of the several. His whole "New Deal" was the most flagrant abuse of the Constitution ever done by a presidential administration.

Here’s how he as much as amended it thru his actions and the failure of the spineless members of his party to do anything other than express fealty.

Amendment 1. No president shall be removed from office for treason, bribery, or any other crime or misdemeanor, no matter how high, should a partisan minority of the Senate choose to protect him.

That has always been true. See the Clinton impeachment.

Amendment 2. Congressional oversight shall be optional. No congressional subpoena or demand for testimony or documents shall bind a president who chooses to ignore it.

Nothing new there. A President who unconstitutionally ignores congressional oversight can be removed from office if Congress has the numbers to do it.

Amendment 3. Congressional appropriations shall be suggestions. The president may choose whether or not to comply with congressional spending laws, and Congress shall have no recourse should a president declare that his own priorities supersede Congress’s instructions.

Congress has the power to override a presidential veto of any congressional legislation. That's not changed or "as much as" been amended by Trump.

Amendment 4. The president shall have authority to make appointments as he sees fit, without the advice and consent of the Senate, provided he deems his appointees to be acting, temporary, or otherwise exempt from the ordinary confirmation process.

That's not a new thing that Trump "as much as" amended.

Amendment 5. The president shall have unconstrained authority to dangle and issue pardons for the purpose of obstructing justice, tampering with witnesses, and forestalling investigations.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The President has always been able to pardon anyone for any reason related to a federal crime, even for treason. Trump has not made any change to that.

And increments to presidential power beyond that which is given in the Constitution has always been a goal of Progressives. Even though it can bite them in their political ass sometimes, it still facilitates the progress toward replacing the Constitution with their preferred centralized government by an administrative state.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The President has always been able to pardon anyone for any reason related to a federal crime, even for treason. Trump has not made any change to that.

And increments to presidential power beyond that which is given in the Constitution has always been a goal of Progressives. Even though it can bite them in their political ass sometimes, it still facilitates the progress toward replacing the Constitution with their preferred centralized government by an administrative state.

As I said

Here’s how he as much as amended it thru his actions and the failure of the spineless members of his party to do anything other than express fealty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

As I said

Here’s how he as much as amended it thru his actions and the failure of the spineless members of his party to do anything other than express fealty.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Doing what you're constitutionally allowed to do is not amending the Constitution, it is following the Constitution.

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Doing what you're constitutionally allowed to do is not amending the Constitution, it is following the Constitution.

And just what would have happened if his “Fire in the Reichstag” had worked on January 6th?
Would Eastman’s plan also have been constitutional in your view?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Pete F.

And just what would have happened if his “Fire in the Reichstag” had worked on January 6th?
Would Eastman’s plan also have been constitutional in your view?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you're no longer interested in discussing how the "Stable Genius" as much as amended the Constitution?

[Pete F.]

Originally Posted by detbuch

So you're no longer interested in discussing how the "Stable Genius" as much as amended the Constitution?

Technically he did nothing, in normalizing how far a President can push the rules he did far too much

So just what would have happened if his “Fire in the Reichstag” had worked on January 6th?
Would Eastman’s plan also have been constitutional in your view?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device