• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump quotes Alan Dershowitz saying consideration of 25th Amendment ‘despicable’

Oborosen said:
If all you can do is attribute motive and make vague accusations.
Click to expand...

No sir, I've told you that the executive does not get to determine the constitutionality of a amendments application. You've refused that argument cause you want us to give you a lesson on Section 4. The only problem is that if we do, it becomes obvious you don't understand who would actually remove the president - or why Trump and Dershowitz sound so crazy.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Is there any wonder why the OP is replying to nearly every post besides #8??? Hermmm?
 
Captain Adverse said:
What exactly is wrong with what was tweeted?
Click to expand...

Not one of the restrictions Dershowitz claimed exist for the use of Section 4 are listed in the article's text. The president does not get to determine the constitutionality behind an amendment's application.

You're welcome.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
truthatallcost said:
Is there any wonder why the OP is replying to nearly every post besides #8??? Hermmm?
Click to expand...
I'm supposed to reply to posts I'm not quoted in? You're not funny, and the obsession with white genocide has gotten to your head.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Hatuey said:
No sir, I've told you that the executive does not get to determine the constitutionality of a amendments application. You've refused that argument cause you want us to give you a lesson on Section 4. The only problem is that if we do, it becomes obvious you don't understand who would actually remove the president - or why Trump and Dershowitz sound so crazy.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...
Yeah, reaching for more straws and just running away from the question isn't going to help you here.

I care little for what Trump' opinion, or even Dershowitz' for that matter.

I asked a very simple question and the fact that you even edited it out of the quote. Is pretty much proof that you don't really care to have an actual discussion here. So I'm done chasing a running man.

You can go now.
 
Oborosen said:
Yeah, reaching for more straws and just running away from the question isn't going to help you here.
Click to expand...

Who gets to determine whether an amendment is being applied constitutionally? Why would beliefs about why it is being used be relevant to whether or not it is being applied correctly?

Don't worry Oborosen, people will understand that you decided all on your own you'd base your opinion about constitutionality on belief and not any specifics of the law.

Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Hatuey said:
I'm supposed to reply to posts I'm not quoted in? You're not funny, and the obsession with white genocide has gotten to your head.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

When that quote is perhaps the strongest refutation of your OP, yet you skip over it to talk to Bucky, my antennae perk up.
 
truthatallcost said:
When that quote is perhaps the strongest refutation of your OP, yet you skip over it to talk to Bucky, my antennae perk up.
Click to expand...

I skipped to the first post I was quoted in. Then I responded to other quotes I was in. Lol, you doing alright tonight?

That you think CA refuted a claim by making up reasons for removal not listed in section 4 is funny.

I bet you think he makes a lot of sense.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Hatuey said:
Who gets to determine whether an amendment is being applied constitutionally? Why would beliefs about why it is being used be relevant to whether or not it is being applied correctly?

Don't worry Oborosen, people will understand that you decided all on your own you'd base your opinion about constitutionality on belief and not any specifics of the law.

Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Seeing as you've had your tail tucked since post #8. This is only getting to be more embarrassing for you and you alone.

I don't care who is trying to determine what. I'm trying to see if we can both come to a agreement on how this amendment can be used to do, what someone is trying to use it for. But seeing as you've kept running all this time. It's painfully obvious that you're not really capable of doing even coming close to doing that.

Why is it that I have to watch you run, nearly every time we talk?
 
Oborosen said:
Seeing as you've had your tail tucked since post #8. This is only getting to be more embarrassing for you and you alone.

I don't care who is trying to determine what. I'm trying to see if we can both come to a agreement on how this amendment can be used to do, what someone is trying to use it for. But seeing as you've kept running all this time. It's painfully obvious that you're not really capable of doing even coming close to doing that.

Why is it that I have to watch you run, nearly every time we talk?
Click to expand...

Section 4. CA's post is full of made standards for its use that are not listed in the actual text. Do you really not understand why anyone would disregard an argument that isn't based on the text itself but an interpretation of how one believes others are using it?

Who gets to determine the constitutionality of an amendment's application? Go for it. Let us know whenever you want.

:)

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Again: Who gets to determine the constitutionality when measures in an amendment are applied? Is it the executive?

Go for it. Take your best shot. Use those silly powers of reasoning. Let everyone know exactly what your ideology has been leading to.

There aren't enough acrobatic movements in the world for anyone to claim the executive gets to mind read and determine the constitutionality of an amendment's application.

You know this, but you're stalling.

:)

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Disagreeing with the President on political issues or even committing crimes in office doesn't mean the remedy is the 25th amendment, the remedy is impeachment.

Utilizing the 25th requires 2/3rds of both houses to agree after you get a majority of the cabinet and the VP to state he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Disagreeing with the President on political issues or even committing crimes in office doesn't mean the remedy is the 25th amendment, the remedy is impeachment.

Utilizing the 25th requires 2/3rds of both houses to agree after you get a majority of the cabinet and the VP to state he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office.
Click to expand...

Better get that lasso, cause you're going for a runner.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Disagreeing with the President on political issues or even committing crimes in office doesn't mean the remedy is the 25th amendment, the remedy is impeachment.

Utilizing the 25th requires 2/3rds of both houses to agree after you get a majority of the cabinet and the VP to state he is unable to fulfill the duties of the office.
Click to expand...

And yet, it is not unconstitutional to use it. The executive branch's beliefs about why it is being used have zero relevance when it comes to determining the constitutionality of its use.

Prove me wrong.

:)

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Hatuey said:
And yet, it is not unconstitutional to use it. The executive branch's beliefs about why it is being used has zero relevance when it comes to determining the constitutionality of its use.

Prove me wrong.

:)

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

Inability to perform the duties of office indicates physical or mental infirmity, not political differences. I am not arguing the constitutionality I am arguing the intended function of the amendment and how it is applied. Seeking to use the 25th to remedy a political situation will end badly for Democrats.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Inability to perform the duties of office indicates physical or mental infirmity, not political differences. I am not arguing the constitutionality I am arguing the intended function of the amendment and how it is applied. Seeking to use the 25th to remedy a political situation will end badly for Democrats.
Click to expand...

You are arguing that the executive gets to determine the reasons swiveling up on someone's head as to why the amendment is being used, and not whether it is constitutional to use it. An argument irrelevant to what evidence can be presented for its use. That much is clear. If you were arguing the constitutionality of using an amendment in the constitution, you'd look pretty silly, like Oborosen.

Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Hatuey said:
You are arguing that the executive gets to determine the reasons swiveling up on someone's head as to why the amendment is being used, and not whether it is constitutional to use it. An argument irrelevant to what evidence can be presented for its use. That much is clear. If you were arguing the constitutionality of using an amendment in the constitution, you'd look pretty silly, like Oborosen.

Lol.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

LOL yourself. My argument is rooted in the basis for the amendment, the intent of its use, and what is required to use it. I don't know what the **** you are using for criteria.
 
OpportunityCost said:
LOL yourself. My argument is rooted in the basis for the amendment, the intent of its use, and what is required to use it. I don't know what the **** you are using for criteria.
Click to expand...
Please show us where the decision on whether an amendment is being used constitutionally falls on the executive to make - you know it does not - which is why you haven't been as quick to tell everyone how Trump arrived at the conclusion that it was.

Mind reading? Made up ideas as to what the text of the 25th actually says? Maybe the same way he came with the death penalty for innocent men in NYC or locking up Hillary without a trial having been had.

Lol, we get it - you are out of ideas - so you make non-existent precedent for how amendments may be applied - but ones that aren't listed in the amendments themselves - just Dershowitz ramblings.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
 
Oborosen said:
If all you can do is attribute motive and make vague accusations. I'll just ask someone on the thread who doesn't want to keep running from the question.

How can the 25th amendment be justified in removing a sitting president?
Click to expand...
Please read the 25th and then quote the part that requires it's use to be justified and specifies who decides if its use is justified
 
Crovax said:
Russia hostile because they prefered Trump to Hillary :rofl:

Russia has done much worse things and has always been our enemy since the end of WW2 but the democrats flip flop on the issue because of Trump is always a source of great hilarity
Click to expand...
So Russia has always been our enemy but they're not a hostile nation.

Great logic you got going on
 
Hatuey said:
Not one of the restrictions Dershowitz claimed exist for the use of Section 4 are listed in the article's text. The president does not get to determine the constitutionality behind an amendment's application.

You're welcome.

Sent from Trump Plaza's basement using Putin's MacBook.
Click to expand...

:roll:

EVERYONE has a right to opine about what is or is not "Constitutional."

People in this Forum do it all the time when it comes to gun rights, free speech, religious freedom, etc., etc., etc.. That is all the President did in that tweet.

As I stated in my post you responded to, the idea that because someone does not agree with the policies of a sitting President and is striving to remove him/her as a result is NOT what the 25th Amendment was designed for.

As for "suspicions" of collusion or obstruction? That is what IMPEACHMENT was designed for. Read the Constitution.

As for determining what actually is or is not "Constitutional," we've given that power to the SCOTUS after Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom