#ConstitutionalAmendments

[eastvillagetwt]

Upholding the Constitution: Analyzing Trump's Presidential Eligibility and the 14th Amendment

The discourse surrounding the eligibility of Donald Trump for the presidency, in light of his actions before and during his term, is a matter that goes to the very heart of our constitutional order. His recent statements only reinforce what is already evident from his previous conduct: actions that aimed to subvert the Constitution, disrupt the peaceful transfer of power, and incite insurrection. These are not mere rhetorical excesses; they are serious actions that demand a robust legal response. The role of the courts in such a context is not to weigh the popularity or political influence of an individual but to steadfastly uphold the Constitution's principles and provisions.

Consider the clear-cut rules of presidential eligibility: a candidate must be a natural-born citizen, at least 35 years old, and a resident within the United States for 14 years. These criteria are not arbitrary impositions but essential safeguards to maintain the constitutional framework. To illustrate, let's take the example of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a respected public figure and former governor. Despite his popularity and potential as a leader, he is ineligible to run for president because he was not born in the United States. This is not an anti-democratic stance; it is a constitutional reality. To alter this would require a constitutional amendment, a process that reflects the collective will of the people and is deliberately rigorous to ensure thorough national consensus.

Drawing parallels to the case of Trump, it becomes clear that adhering to constitutional eligibility criteria is not about denying democracy but about preserving it. Those who argue that Trump should be eligible despite constitutional constraints are, perhaps unknowingly, echoing a mindset reminiscent of monarchical or oligarchic systems, where rules bend for individuals. This is contrary to the principle articulated by John Adams: “We are a government of laws and not of men.” In a nation governed by laws, no individual, no matter how influential or popular, is above the constitution.

This brings us to the critical role of modern mass media and social media in shaping public perception and creating personality cults. The influence of these platforms can distort public discourse and lead to a situation where the charisma and popularity of an individual overshadow legal and constitutional realities. This phenomenon is particularly dangerous in the context of presidential eligibility, as it can lead to a disconnect between the constitutional order and public sentiment.

In conclusion, the enforcement of constitutional provisions regarding presidential eligibility must be unyielding and immune to the sway of public opinion and media narratives. The eligibility criteria are not just legal formalities; they are the bedrock of our democratic system, ensuring that the highest office in the land is occupied in accordance with the constitutional framework. To deviate from this, influenced by personality cults or popular appeal, is to risk the very principles of our constitutional democracy. We must remember, always, that we are a nation of laws, where the Constitution reigns supreme over individual ambitions and popular whims.

[wnewsguru]

संविधान सभा में कांग्रेस के सदस्य कमलापति त्रिपाठी ने संशोधन प्रस्ताव पर अपनी भावनाएं की व्यक्त

इंडिया 'बनाम' भारत'की चर्चा इस वक़्त देश में सबसे ज़्यादा हो रही है। पहले जी20 के निमंत्रण पत्र में' प्रेजिडेंट ऑफ भारत'लिखा गया तो बाद में प्रधानमंत्री नरेंद्र मोदी के इंडोनेशिया दौरे के कार्यक्रम में' प्राइम मिनिस्टर ऑफ भारत' का उल्लेख हुआ।

अब जब चर्चा हो रही है कि क्या आधिकारिक रूप से देश का नाम बदलने वाला है। ऐसे में देश का संविधान लिखने वाली सभा की एक पर हुई बहस के बारे में जानना भी ज़रूरी होगा। जो बेहद दिलचस्प थी।

[ivygorgon]

An open letter to the President & U.S. Congress

Prohibit Felons From Serving as President

46 so far! Help us get to 50 signers!

I am writing to express my concerns about felons potentially serving as President of the United States. Although our Constitution does not explicitly bar this, I believe our principles and the integrity of the office should.

The presidency is a symbol of moral leadership. A felon in this role could undermine justice and public trust, setting a poor example for the nation.

Legally, while federal laws don't prevent felons from running for President, state laws often limit felons' civic rights. This discrepancy raises questions about consistency in law application. For example, in Florida, felons lose rights like jury service until restored. Should these restrictions not also apply to the presidency, given its impact?

Historical cases, like Eugene V. Debs' campaign from prison, highlight the oddity of such a situation.

From a security standpoint, entrusting nuclear codes or military decisions to someone with a criminal history poses significant risks. Internationally, having a leader with a felony could tarnish America's image, particularly if the crime involved financial misconduct while negotiating international finance.

Given these issues, perhaps a constitutional amendment is needed. This isn't just about closing a legal loophole but about ensuring our leaders possess the moral authority necessary for such a critical role.

In conclusion, while not legally barred, the ethical and practical implications of a felon as President are deeply concerning. We must act to preserve the integrity of our highest office.

Thank you for considering this important issue.

▶ Created on November 6 by Marcus

📱 Text SIGN PDCKKQ to 50409

🤯 Liked it? Text FOLLOW MEEVV to 50409

[lighthousenewsnetwork]

WASHINGTON — In a groundbreaking move to streamline the fact-checking process, Republican lawmakers introduced a constitutional amendment Thursday that would allow any news causing Republican discomfort to be automatically classified as "fake news," effectively replacing traditional verification methods with gut feelings. The Emotional Truth Detection Amendment (ETDA), championed by House GOP leader James "Just Trust Me" Johnson, would revolutionize the way Americans determine reality by establishing discomfort as the primary arbiter of truth. "For too long, we've been enslaved by so-called 'evidence' and 'verifiable facts,'" Johnson declared during a press conference where he appeared visibly uncomfortable with several questions about his own statement. "This amendment finally acknowledges what we've known all along – if it feels wrong, it is wrong." The proposed amendment introduces the groundbreaking "Discomfort Scale" (DS), ranging from "Slightly Triggered" to "Full Tucker," which would serve as the new gold standard for truth detection. Any news item causing distress levels above "Mild Conservative Queasiness" would be automatically classified as fabricated propaganda. Dr. Richard Feelgood from the prestigious Institute of Feelings Over Facts praised the initiative, citing his recent study showing a "perfect correlation" between Republican discomfort and fake news. "Our research, which made us very comfortable, proves that emotional distress is the most reliable indicator of falsehood," explained Feelgood, while refusing to share the study's methodology as it "felt too uncomfortable." The amendment has already led to several major revelations. Climate change data was immediately classified as "Ultra Fake" after causing severe discomfort among oil company executives. Meanwhile, a story about record corporate profits during inflation was deemed "Double Plus Fake" when it made several senators shift uncomfortably in their ergonomic chairs. To implement the new system, the government will establish the Ministry of Emotional Verification, complete with a 24/7 emergency hotline for reporting comfort-threatening information. Tech giants are already developing discomfort-detecting algorithms, with Meta announcing a new "makes me uncomfortable" button to replace their controversial fact-checking program. Democrats attempted to protest the amendment with statistics and peer-reviewed studies, but their presentations were promptly classified as fake news for causing significant distress among Republican lawmakers. "Their charts and numbers made me feel bad," explained Senator Tom Thompson, dabbing his forehead. "Clearly, this proves they're false." The amendment includes a special provision classifying any news that makes Democrats uncomfortable as "Ultra Truth," regardless of content. "It's just common sense," explained GOP spokesperson Sarah Spinner. "When they feel bad, it's because truth hurts." In an unexpected development, several fact-checkers reported that the amendment itself caused them considerable discomfort, potentially creating a paradox where the amendment would classify itself as fake news. When asked about this logical contradiction, Spinner declared the paradox itself to be fake news, as thinking about it made her uncomfortable. Citizens are encouraged to begin preparation for the new system by keeping personal comfort journals and enrolling in local "Truth Feeling" certification programs. The GOP has helpfully provided a starter kit including a comfort thermometer, a reality adjustment blindfold, and a pocket-sized copy of "Alternative Facts and Where to Feel Them." Remember, if this article has made you uncomfortable, you now have constitutional grounds to declare it entirely fictional. At press time, several Republicans reported feeling uncomfortable about feeling uncomfortable, creating an infinite regression that threatened to tear the very fabric of reality.

[mortiz888-blog]

Understanding the Electoral College: How Wins Happen

Explore the intriguing complexities of the Electoral College system that allows candidates to win the presidency without securing the popular vote. Discover why amending this process is such a monumental challenge for America’s voters. #ElectoralCollege #PoliticalSystem #VotingRights #Election2024 #USPolitics #CivicEngagement #PresidentialElections #ConstitutionalAmendment #VoteSmart #Democracy

[azaadpakistan]

Punjab College Incident - Oxford University Chancellor Election - Aaj Shahzeb Khanzada Kay Saath

[blaze-papers]

Mexico Launches Ambitious Overhaul of Judicial System

In a sweeping move to reform its judicial system, Mexico has made a historic decision to replace its current appointment-based model with an electoral system for selecting judges. This radical overhaul, approved by the majority of the country's state legislatures, aims to address pervasive issues of corruption and inefficiency within the justice system.

On Thursday, Mexico’s states moved swiftly to back the amendment to the Constitution, marking one of the most extensive judicial reforms ever attempted by a large democracy. The new system will allow voters to elect judges, a shift that proponents believe will enhance transparency and public trust. However, critics argue that this move risks politicizing the judiciary and potentially undermining the rule of law.

Judge Michael Sachs of San Bernardino County has issued a preliminary injunction, halting the enforcement of a related policy and striking down most of the district’s original plan, save for provisions requiring notification when a student’s name or pronouns are formally recorded in school documents. This decision follows recent legislation, AB 1955, which prohibits schools from mandating such notifications.

The legislation has received praise from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups for its protective measures for transgender and gender-nonconforming students. Tony Hoang, Executive Director of Equality California, hailed the reform as "critical" for ensuring that students are not outed to potentially hostile home environments.

In contrast, conservative groups such as the California Family Council argue that the law infringes on parental rights. Jonathan Keller, President of the Council, condemned AB 1955 as a violation of parental authority and a potential threat to children’s safety.

The overhaul represents a significant shift in Mexico’s judicial landscape. By June 2025, voters will choose members of the Supreme Court, an oversight tribunal, and approximately half of the nation’s 7,000 judges. The remaining judges will be elected in 2027.

The amendment has been met with both support and opposition. Protests and strikes by judges and court workers have erupted, with some demonstrators storming the Senate to halt debate on the measure. Despite the unrest, the Senate has passed the amendment, which now awaits final approval from President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, a strong advocate of the reform.

López Obrador has defended the overhaul, asserting that it reinforces democratic principles by allowing citizens to elect their judicial representatives. However, the U.S. Ambassador to Mexico, Ken Salazar, has warned that the reform could jeopardize judicial independence and exacerbate issues of corruption within the judiciary.

The reform plan also includes significant structural changes, including the separation of the judiciary from its oversight body, the Federal Judicial Council. Current investigations reveal issues of nepotism and inadequate disciplinary actions within the council, highlighting the need for reform.

Despite the controversy, many Mexicans see the reform as a chance to address long-standing issues within the judicial system. Government surveys indicate widespread distrust of judges, with perceptions of corruption and nepotism remaining high.

While the reform’s ambitious scope raises questions about implementation and judicial independence, it also brings much-needed attention to the state of justice in Mexico. As the nation prepares for a new era of judicial elections, the debate continues to unfold, reflecting the complexities of balancing reform with safeguarding democratic values.

[cebozcom]

Wisconsin Voters Decide on Election Funding Amendments | www.ceboz.com

Wisconsin voters are deciding on two Republican-backed constitutional amendments related to election funding and administration.

[kesarijournal]

The Quandary of The Voice: When Noble Intentions Meet the Brick Wall of Constitutionality

Ah, The Voice, Australia’s much-vaunted proposal aimed at giving the country’s Indigenous people a say in the matters that affect them. Noble, isn’t it? Almost poetic in its aspirations. But if only aspirations were all it took to amend a constitution!## The Federation of Indissoluble DreamsLet’s start with the grand idea that Australia is a federation of ‘indissoluble’ states. “United we stand,”…

[scribesandvibes]

#StateRepresentative @doreenrcarter presents #REALMENTALK REAL ISSUES with #DoreenCarter, 10/25/2020 at 12:00 p.m. Join us on Zoom to discuss #TheElection, #ConstitutionalAmendments, Local #Referendums, The DeKalb County #Ethics Question, and other #importantissues concerning the constituents of #GeorgiaHouseDistrict92. Registration: bit.ly/realmentalk-20201025 (#linkinbio) #FacebookLive: #StateRep. Doreen Carter ・・・ #vibewise: #YourVoiceYourVote | doreencarter.com | #District92Strong | #DeKalbCounty | #RockdaleCounty | #RealMenVote | #LetsTalkAboutIt https://www.instagram.com/p/CGwGwWAhnJP/?igshid=16v3gkwp2o88g

[backroombuzz]

President Trump Backs Constitutional Amendment To Make Burning The American Flag Illegal

President Trump is “all in” on a proposed constitutional amendment to make flag-burning illegal

READ MORE 

Read the full article

[lawfultalks]

Basic Structure of Constitution The #ConstitutionOfIndia has stated some basic features that cannot be altered through amendments by Parliament. This is known as BASIC STRUCTURE DOCTRINE. This gives power to #SupremeCourt to review and repeal the Constitutional amendments and acts enacted by Parliament which contradicts the basic features of the constitution. These basic features or basic structure is the backbone of the constitution and authorities are obliged to follow them while enacting Constitutional amendments and acts. Read More: http://bit.ly/2O5iCRE #IndianConstitution #Law #Lawyer #BasicStructureOfConstitution #Doctrine #ConstitutionalAmendment #LegalConcept https://www.instagram.com/p/B0GALsLpCp0/?igshid=l1uppubripn8

[upscmagazine]

[mishrasatty7]

#102 #constitutionalamendment #india #supremecourtofindia #review #reservation #quota #judgment (at Mohali, Chandigarh) https://www.instagram.com/p/CO3FXk2pMrS/?igshid=ejjcqedzqjwg