• msfroh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    Not saying that he won’t try, but the president has no (constitutional) say in the sitting of congress.

    I looked it up and in Powell vs McCormack (1969), the Supreme Court ruled that the speaker of the house has no authority to deny a representative sent by their respective state. So, unless the current Supreme Court decides to overturn that precedent, it would require a 2/3 majority vote of the newly-seated house to expel someone, assuming I’ve understood correctly (which is questionable).

    Tl;dr: I think even this couldn’t necessarily prevent folks who win in November from serving.

    • MerryJaneDoe@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 hours ago

      Did you used to work for the Justice Department, by chance?

      “Guys, it turns out that molesting and raping children is indeed illegal for an American citizen. I think we might be able to prosecute Trump, and a whole lot of other people, based on the Epstein files.”

    • givesomefucks@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 hours ago

      Not saying that he won’t try, but the president has no (constitutional) say in the sitting of congress.

      Buddy…

      You don’t think John Thune and Mike Johnson wouldn’t listen to trump if he says to not call the new Congress into session?

      How the fuck can someone be so authentically naivie in 2026, to think the mastermind conspiracy of that is just too far fetched?

      Like, you might as well have said:

      Of course billionaires pay taxes, it’s the law

      Tl;dr: I think even this couldn’t necessarily prevent folks who win in November from serving

      I legit can’t tell if that’s a typo or brainrot. But you still don’t understand any of this