What does the future hold for Donald Trump? - threadbans in OP

Much more likely she can't count past ten without removing her shoes.

Anyway, I believe they scheduled a vote for when a dem was in hospital for a procedure, but he made it back in time to vote!

Fully agree, it's the lower courts cutting off the weak exits for SCOTUS is important. Those rulings close the door on wishy washy interpretation of the 14th Amendment.

Large parts of the constitution are somewhat vague. While James Madison was undeniably a genius, even he could not predict a Trump being within spitting distance of the highest office in the land. Nevermind for potentially a second term.

Trump's role in the insurrection largely amounts to a mob boss trying to claim he didn't order his men to kill a rival mobster, he only told them to "Take care of him".

Trump didn't order his followers to prevent the election from being certified, he only gathered them nearby, riled them up with lies about stolen election and their country being stolen from them (several months of this), told them to go to the capitol to "peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."

While also saying "You don't concede when there's theft involved. Our country has had enough. We will not take it anymore." "You will have an illegitimate president. That is what you will have, and we can't let that happen." "if you don't fight like hell you're not going to have a country anymore".

He all but told them to "Take care of it".

From the BBC back in 2021:

Edited. Nevermind, I stand corrected.

If Trump can cover himself by saying he told his followers to go to the Capitol "peacefully and patriotically", he's setting a pretty stunning precedent. You can say anything you want to a crowd - rile them up to no end - but once you insert one phrase about no violence, you're completely absolved of any violence which does happen.

Don't think you'd have to be a cynic to think that particular loophole would be abused.

Fair enough. I wasn't ware of that particular fact. Disregard my previous comment then!

OK. Thats kind of an open and shut case then.

Agree. The Americans are far too fond of the Framers' intent when crafting and even those of generations later when amending the Constitution. As an 18th-century effort to provide the scope and extent of Government vs State & Individual rights? The US Constitution is a noble effort. It is also very much of its time, and whilst jurists struggle to reason out the "framers intent"? They ignore that those intentions were shaped in an 18th-century world.

Constitutions are a great tool; they must be living documents. Subject to amendment to meet the needs and mores of new generations, the bar for changing a constitution should be high, but I do feel in the US? The bar is too high, and the difficulty in attempting a change that doesn't directly serve members of Congress' interests ensures no real effort at such a change has been made in over 50 years. Even the most recent amendment, in 1991, resulted from 202 years of limbo.

Imagine if we held the articles of the Bunreacht as sacrosanct. No Divorce, no marriage equality, Articles 2 & 3 persisting and blocking the GFA's settlement, the entry into the EEC and the further referenda on constitutional change for the EU treaties, Abortion rights, Nationality and other issues that were amended by way of referenda.

Those changes reflect an Irish realisation that our Constitution is broadly a good document. It can always be better, or at the very least, if not "better", that it can be amended to be more reflective of our society its needs and be reframed accordingly.

The US and its reverence for the original document is IMHO very much at odds with the framer's original intention for the Constitution to be a broad strokes document with review and amendment as the need arose. Indeed, in the 1st 25yrs of the US Constitution, whilst the framers were still framing ;) It was amended 12 times (13 if you count the 27th which passed in 1991, after being proposed in 1789). Almost half of the 27 amendments to the constitution, occurred in its 1st 25yrs. with 13(14 counting the 27th) in the intervening 220 years. No Constitution is so perfect that it never needs changing. The Yanks see that as anathema though and, I do think that the seditious efforts of Trump & Co demand at least the revisiting of the processes and laws that he almost subverted.

It of course, wont happen but, its an area of jurisprudence I have great interest in, despite my having no dog in the fight other than wanting to see a stable and secure US.

Not to forget the wisdom that every villain is the hero of their own story. That doesn't mean they're not still a villain.

Why should Trump have his intent so considered when murderers rarely get to say they genuinely thought they were doing the world a favour by slaying their victim and have that claim be treated seriously. The only instance where the latter is given real consideration is when said murderer is pleading insanity.

If Trump uses intent to justify heinous actions, despite little credible evidence for and much against, is he then basically admitting a delusional mindset or even an insane one? I mean... he probably could do that and not have it particularly hurt his numbers since about half of America's likely voters are right there with him.