House Democrat plans to file a constitutional amendment to invalidate Supreme Court ruling

[mystery-ak]

House Democrat plans to file a constitutional amendment to invalidate Supreme Court ruling

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law," Morelle wrote on X. "This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy."

By Misty Severi


Published: July 1, 2024 9:10pm

 
Democratic New York Rep. Joe Morelle announced Monday that he will file a constitutional amendment that will virtually invalidate the Supreme Court's recent ruling on presidential immunity.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that presidents have presidential immunity for some "official acts," but not unofficial ones, which means they cannot be prosecuted for "official acts." However, it did not specify what constitutes official versus unofficial acts.

Critics of the new ruling claim that the high court has essentially made it so a president is "above the law" because they cannot be prosecuted for their official actions under normal law, according to The Hill. But sitting presidents who commit crimes while in office can still be impeached and removed by the Senate.

“I will introduce a constitutional amendment to reverse SCOTUS’ harmful decision and ensure that no president is above the law," Morelle wrote on X. "This amendment will do what SCOTUS failed to do—prioritize our democracy."

Morelle's constitutional amendment is one of the only ways to challenge the Supreme Court's decision, because the court is the final arbiter of the law. Rulings can be also altered by a new court ruling.

The Supreme Court's decision was the result of former President Donald Trump's claims of presidential immunity over his alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election.

more
https://justthenews.com/government/congress/house-democrat-says-he-will-file-constitutional-amendment-invalidate-supreme?utm_source=mux&utm_medium=social-media&utm_campaign=social-media-autopost

[Wingnut]

Collectively, members of the House and Senate typically propose around 200 amendments during each two-year term of Congress.[8] Proposals have covered numerous topics, but none made in recent decades have become part of the Constitution. Historically, most died in the congressional committees to which they were assigned. Since 1999, only about 20 proposed amendments have received a vote by either the full House or Senate. The last time a proposal gained the necessary two-thirds support in both the House and the Senate for submission to the states was the District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment in 1978. Only 16 states had ratified it when the seven-year time limit expired

Chances of this BS amendment getting out of the house and Senate are slim to none.  But hey Joe Moron Morelli,  you go boy.  Have at it.

[libertybele]

My concern is that the GOP's House majority is slim to none.  It will take DEMS to keep this from going to the Senate.

[PeteS in CA]

So Morelle is admitting that the ruling was constitutionally correct, and only an amendment could change it.

Meanwhile other Dems are, very noisily, claiming the ruling is outrageous and tyrannous.

[catfish1957]

Am I the only one here who sees this rule helping prevent the existing POTUS from being jailed for real crimes like he needs to be on January  21, 2025?

House dims...   be careful for what you wish for.

[DCPatriot]

Am I the only one here who sees this rule helping prevent the existing POTUS from being jailed for real crimes like he needs to be on January  21, 2025?

House dims...   be careful for what you wish for.

Nope...said so another thread this morning or last night.

https://www.gopbriefingroom.com/index.php/topic,535733.msg3038097.html#msg3038097

[The_Reader_David]

This is all nonsense and based on misunderstanding the ruling.  The whole point of the official act/unofficial acts distinction is that there are some things the President can do, indeed must do, by virtue of being President -- exercising powers explicitly given in the Constitution or delegated to the Executive by Congress in legislation.  When the President is doing his job, that is executing those powers, he's immune from ordinary criminal prosecution.  Misconduct in the job is what impeachment (and conviction) are for.  But this does not make him 'above the law'.  If the President pulls a gun and shoots his wife's lover, he can be prosecuted for murder the same as everyone else.  If he hires a prostitute in a jurisdiction where hiring prostitutes has been criminalized, or scores a bag of cocaine, or... he can be prosecuted the same as anyone else. 

[Kamaji]

This is all nonsense and based on misunderstanding the ruling.  The whole point of the official act/unofficial acts distinction is that there are some things the President can do, indeed must do, by virtue of being President -- exercising powers explicitly given in the Constitution or delegated to the Executive by Congress in legislation.  When the President is doing his job, that is executing those powers, he's immune from ordinary criminal prosecution.  Misconduct in the job is what impeachment (and conviction) are for.  But this does not make him 'above the law'.  If the President pulls a gun and shoots his wife's lover, he can be prosecuted for murder the same as everyone else.  If he hires a prostitute in a jurisdiction where hiring prostitutes has been criminalized, or scores a bag of cocaine, or... he can be prosecuted the same as anyone else.