- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
- cross-posted to:
- politics@lemmy.world
US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders
Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.
Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.
He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.
Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.
To be clear, this immunity obviously DOES NOT EXIST in the constitution and was invented out of whole cloth.
It’s not like the constitution is some infallible magic text, it was also “invented” by some dudes.
It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.
Jefferson did write he wanted it remade every ~20 years. But that was a personal belief of his not the general understanding when the constitution was adopted.
While technically true, countries with a proper constitution that is upheld by the judiciary, legislative and executive branch of government tend to be much more stable.
It is good to amend the constitution if necessary, but the principle of there being a constitution and it being followed, is a very important thing for democracy.
I guess that’s true and I certainly don’t have anything against the concept of a constitution, but as someone not living in the US I find it pretty strange that so many Americans treat the constitution like some holy religious text.
That’s true, but I don’t think it invalidates anything about the post you replied to. It’s not a question of who invented what. The case is that the job of the founders WAS to invent the constitution and the structure of the government and all that.
The second group’s job is to read what they wrote and follow it. And sometimes there’s wiggle room in interpretation and settling that is their job too. But they don’t get to make up new laws and amendments just because the result of doing so is desirable for them.
The way they interpreted it was invented, but there was precedent in the constitution
There’s also the question of how a law that would criminalize an enumerated power could be constitutional as applied as. That’d be voiding the Constitution by statute rather than amendment.
Which would require the president to sign off on but could be weaponized against an incoming president if one party has the legislature and executive.