Is it a Democracy?

Trump and Elon are winning, You are not,
We the People are winning bigly. Go Trump. I wonder what month #2 will bring.

Democrats are being gutted; smart ones are joining Trump.

It will be made clear when Trump gets to the people.
Your lame, attempted fear-mongering and panic-peddling won't work. Your desperation is so very transparent. Good riddance DNC.

He has suckered you into backing the super-rich who are creating a plutocracy,
... of RACIST misogynist homophobe Nazi climate assassins. Guess what we've all heard too many times.

The Constitution and the law are impediments to their plans.
Nope. Activist judges are lawfaring from the bench for as long as they can hold out.
 
Like Damo, Terry's mind has completely gone to shit. He's a husk of what he used to be. A lobotomized cultist squawking into the abyss as if he has any grasp whatsoever on reality.
I think he's alone like most of the elderly JPP MAGAts and feels abandoned by his family.
 
point out where my statement is wrong. i'll wait.
"the executive is free to ignore the judicial opinion"

That is and has never been true. Imagine what you would do if Obama had said that during his presidency.
Agreed. As the link below notes, SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. It further notes that recent rulings expand Executive branch powers, however SCOTUS still interprets the Constitutionality of Executive and Legislative branch actions.

The 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall's decision asserted the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate constitutional interpreter. This case set a precedent for the Court to limit both legislative and executive actions...

...Justice Gorsuch has discussed the need for caution in expanding executive power, articulating concerns over modern applications diverging from the Framers' vision. He believes any power extension should reflect careful historical examination, aligning with Madisonian ideals of limited, balanced governance.

However, interpretations within originalism vary. Critics often point to the need for adapting principles to contemporary governance challenges, arguing that the Constitution's broad language provides an adaptable framework without losing its foundational purpose.

Debates among originalist justices demonstrate interplay between tradition and adaptation. While they seek to stay true to original understanding, they must reconcile historical intent with modern complexities, negotiating between faithful constitutional interpretation and practical governance realities.
 
Agreed. As the link below notes, SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution. It further notes that recent rulings expand Executive branch powers, however SCOTUS still interprets the Constitutionality of Executive and Legislative branch actions.

The 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review. Chief Justice John Marshall's decision asserted the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate constitutional interpreter. This case set a precedent for the Court to limit both legislative and executive actions...

...Justice Gorsuch has discussed the need for caution in expanding executive power, articulating concerns over modern applications diverging from the Framers' vision. He believes any power extension should reflect careful historical examination, aligning with Madisonian ideals of limited, balanced governance.

However, interpretations within originalism vary. Critics often point to the need for adapting principles to contemporary governance challenges, arguing that the Constitution's broad language provides an adaptable framework without losing its foundational purpose.


Debates among originalist justices demonstrate interplay between tradition and adaptation. While they seek to stay true to original understanding, they must reconcile historical intent with modern complexities, negotiating between faithful constitutional interpretation and practical governance realities.
The US Constitution did not give power to the federal government to define the limits of it's power.
 
Agreed. As the link below notes, SCOTUS is the ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has NO authority over any constitution.
It further notes that recent rulings expand Executive branch powers, however SCOTUS still interprets the Constitutionality of Executive and Legislative branch actions.
The Supreme Court has NO authority over the Presidents executive authority.
The 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison cemented judicial review.
Can't use it. The Supreme Court has NO authority to change any constitution. It cannot vote itself new authority.
 
That is, and has ALWAYS, been true. try again.
So you never made it to 7th grade to take a civics class. That explains a lot.

Imagine what you would do if Obama had said, "The executive is free to ignore the judicial opinion," during his presidency. Your empty fucking head would explode.
 
So you never made it to 7th grade to take a civics class. That explains a lot.

Imagine what you would do if Obama had said, "The executive is free to ignore the judicial opinion," during his presidency. Your empty fucking head would explode.
more delusions from an idiot leftist who can't handle the truth.
 
Back
Top