• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

A "modest" proposal....

R

Rumblefish

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2024
Messages
3,872
Reaction score
5,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Dems should run on the following for the next presidential election:

Propose and pushing for the following amendments to the US Constitution: (a) altering/eliminating immunity for POTUS from criminal prosecution; (b) POTUS pardons can be overturned by vote of 2/3rds of each house of congress; (c) a constitutional requirment expanding the number of justices on SCOTUS to match the number of appellate circuit courts (which has expanded as the population has increased).

Details (exact wording) to be determined.

The platform would be the "No Kings Platform" and would reign in (modestly) the ever increasing powers of POTUS and restore some checks and balances to the system.
 
I think this is a good idea but if we are going for any big change, we need to change the court. Nothing Dems want will ever get through with this illegitimate SC in place. And I do believe one of or both Thomas and Alito will take money to step down before Trump’s term so we can get Justice Big Ballz or likewise for 50 years on the bench. For the good of our country, this court has to go.
 
The first part of your proposal is going to create far more problems than you realize. Future Presidents of both parties would be targeted with a barrage of nuisance indictments simply for doing their jobs.
 
NatMorton said:
The first part of your proposal is going to create far more problems than you realize. Future Presidents of both parties would be targeted with a barrage of nuisance indictments simply for doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
I'm ok with that.

And "bad faith" prosecutions should be sanctionable in any case.

We can't have a system that hypocritically states "no man is above the law" while, you know, having a man - any man (of any party) - above the law.

And, in any case, MOST prior presidents were under the impression that they could, in fact, be prosecuted....and it actually did NOT lead to a plethora of political prosecutions against POTUS.

One could argue that the fear you note, cuts both ways and would restrain/moderate a POTUS's conduct - even towards one's political "enemies."
 
NatMorton said:
The first part of your proposal is going to create far more problems than you realize. Future Presidents of both parties would be targeted with a barrage of nuisance indictments simply for doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
This was behind OLC guidance and it made sense until the age of Trump. He’s a criminal. The constitution’s remedies for criminal presidents seems to have been built around gentlemen’s agreements that evidently we don’t produce gentlemen anymore. At the very least we need something better than the free for all the SC has unleashed.
 
Honestly and honestly I think that is too "obscure" for most American voters. The Dems needs to focus on what matters day to day for voters and then when they get in do those things you outline.
 
It may seem modest. It is actually nearly impossible, for a reason...amendments to the US Constitution.
 
Sooner or Later said:
It may seem modest. It is actually nearly impossible, for a reason...amendments to the US Constitution.
Click to expand...
Difficult to amend the Constitution? Sure.

But, what "political steam" would a POTUS candidate get from - you know - proposing to limit his/hew own powers as (future) POTUS?

It's never been tried, has it? And the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

Even if fully amending the Constitution failed....would you rather a POTUS that viewed his/her powers as being constrained/limited (and actively seeking to constrain/limit them) as opposed to one who views presidential powers broadly and unlimited?
 
Callen said:
Honestly and honestly I think that is too "obscure" for most American voters. The Dems needs to focus on what matters day to day for voters and then when they get in do those things you outline.
Click to expand...
"No Kings" protests seems to have gained traction.

And voters can fill that vague "slogan" any way that they want....similar to how voters filled "Make America Great Again" with their own versions about what would actually make America Great Again.
 
They still can be prosecuted. This is a misunderstanding. If Trump raped a woman on live tv tomorrow. He would be aressested and charged and found guilty.
 
Rumblefish said:
"No Kings" protests seems to have gained traction.

And voters can fill that vague "slogan" any way that they want....similar to how voters filled "Make America Great Again" with their own versions about what would actually make America Great Again.
Click to expand...
It can work as a slogan but a platform needs to be closer to the people. MAGA is a slogan but migrants, crime and inflation were the issues.
 
Simpletruther said:
They still can be prosecuted. This is a misunderstanding. If Trump raped a woman on live tv tomorrow. He would be aressested and charged and found guilty.
Click to expand...
I’m not so sure that’s true. He seems to be above the law at this point.

Recall that he is indeed a convicted felon, who has escaped any consequences for his crimes.
 
Callen said:
It can work as a slogan but a platform needs to be closer to the people. MAGA is a slogan but migrants, crime and inflation were the issues.
Click to expand...
I'd add or being willing to swap for (c): an amendment that effectively reversed the Supreme Court's holding in Citizens United.

No man is above the law. And you can't - or shouldn't be able to - buy politicians/elections.

Seems like a good place to start...and where most American voters land today.
 
aociswundumho said:
Zero. Nobody cares about this stuff.
Click to expand...
Libertarians don't care about the ever expanding power of POTUS??

Especially since much of the expansion can be traced to the (from the Progressive standpoint) "good Presidents" (e.g., FDR, Kennedy, etc.).

News to me.
 
NatMorton said:
The first part of your proposal is going to create far more problems than you realize. Future Presidents of both parties would be targeted with a barrage of nuisance indictments simply for doing their jobs.
Click to expand...
Nevertheless, there exists too much opportunity for misuse of power by the President that has been exploited by Trump. A stronger civil service and a mandate to execute authorized appropriations with a review process for pardons would changes that could institute better control over a capricious and injudicious President.
 

Have you interacted with the general public lately? Lol if you want someone to win mainstream these days sorry but you'll have to dumb down that proposal a lot. They want someone to promise the world (aka cheap and/or free stuff) and validation (aka identity politics).
 
Rumblefish said:
Libertarians don't care about the ever expanding power of POTUS??

Especially since much of the expansion can be traced to the (from the Progressive standpoint) "good Presidents" (e.g., FDR, Kennedy, etc.).

News to me.
Click to expand...

Libertarians represent about 1% of the population, and many of them don't vote out of principle. Remember that the "great" presidents are those which grabbed the most power.
 
Simpletruther said:
They still can be prosecuted. This is a misunderstanding. If Trump raped a woman on live tv tomorrow. He would be aressested and charged and found guilty.
Click to expand...
Impeached and tried by Senate, but not prosecuted criminally while in office.
 
I don't think a platform based on the (nearly) impossible is a good idea. Our government cannot pass an amendment at this point in time.
 
shrug...

Sure, the Dems could run on that platform and hell, maybe they...with the help of the dishonest media...could win with it. But what happens when they find out they can't get that done? And what will the public think when they make their promises and then have to admit they can't follow through?

It very well could spell the end of the Democratic Party.

In any case, what you describe is hardly a "modest proposal". Rather, it is a radical act of desperation. I mean, you are proposing THREE major amendments to the Constitution.
 
Last edited:
RedFishBlueFish said:
I don't think a platform based on the (nearly) impossible is a good idea. Our government cannot pass an amendment at this point in time.
Click to expand...
That's actually unknown and undetermined because no one has led the voters there.....yet.

The platform is "restrain the power of POTUS" - which, in fact, is an argument for weaking the federal government. The amendments are just how that agenda is achieved. If there is another way to achieve restraining the power of POTUS....I'm all ears, but so far, no one has proposed one.

This argument that should (in theory) appeal to traditional conservatives.

And, given the results of Trump, should also appeal to progressives. Yes, a powerful POTUS can achieve great social goals....but, as we see with Trump, can wreck a great amount of social havoc. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Whatever a strong POTUS can achieve can be undone by the next POTUS in the inevitable pendulum swing.

Of course, it would require progressives to STOP looking SOLELY and primarily to the federal government to address all ills -- especially, divisive social agenda matters.
And focus on more local elections.
 
MAGA seems to be shrugging off "90 deals in 90 days" among other things.

No one could have predicted the "anti-Immigrant" outpouring among the GOP - especially the monied interests that depend upon undocumented immigrants.

No one actually knows what the outcome would be of an outpouring against the "All Powerful POTUS" --- but the picture is emerging...and many don't seem to like it.

Could actually re-energize the Dems.
 

(a) Allowing (all?) state/local DA’s to charge the POTUS with crimes for their ‘official acts’ would be ridiculous.

(b) The volume of pardons/clemency could make that congressional review process into a huge exercise in time wasting.

(c) Adding more justices wouldn’t enable the SCOTUS to handle more cases, which was why the number of appellate circuit courts was expanded.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…