RE: Split decision by SCOTUS on Bunkerboy's taxes.
July 9, 2020 at 1:45 pm
(This post was last modified: July 9, 2020 at 1:50 pm by Brian37.)
(July 9, 2020 at 1:37 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:(July 9, 2020 at 1:34 pm)Brian37 Wrote: What?
Bank CEO, and employee meet to discuss employment,
Bank CEO, " Well Mam/sir, I would love to give you the job, but can I see your financials?"
Person applying for the job, "No, that is my private business".
Bank CEO, (metaphor for american voters) "Ok, I guess I went too far."
Putin, "EXCELLENT"
Do you understand the difference between a regular law and a constitutional amendment?
Boru
Prohibition was constitutionally upheld then constitutionally struck down.
Slavery was legal unfortunately and it took a war to end it.
If the founders intent was to limit power to the office of the President, and they put forth the concept of checks and balances, then the ability to add or remove an amendment, remains. And if you look at the Constitution there are previsons to add or remove an amendment.
And American history has shown that both have happened.
I am merely trying to suggest that the Emoluments Clause was brilliant in the idea of preventing corruption. I think having a Constitutional Amendment requiring anyone applying to run for President could go a long way in preventing an asshole like Trump.
And I don't know what you mean by trying to separate regular law from Constitutional law when all laws stem from the Constitution.
