p3n

I can hardly believe that we have devolved so far, so quickly. We are literally one step away from becoming an authoritarian dictatorship. The plan is this:

1. Deport (and by deport, they mean imprison for life) immigrants. These immigrants will mostly be legitimately illegal and gang associated criminals, but there will be a few individuals with legal standing and no criminal records. This could simply be the result of denying due process, or it could be an intentional test. The important factor is that 5th Amendment Due process rights are denied to all of them. The fact that these people (but be sure to de-humanize them as much as possible) are immigrants will be the distracting factor. <---- We are here

2. Deport (and by deport, they mean imprison for life) criminals. These will be legitimate criminals with legitimately horrible records; that will be the distracting issue that will be made the focus of the argument: “They are serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, we don’t want them here, so we should get rid of them.” This has already been announced as the plan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUfrwWz-m5I . That is not the point! The point is that they are still U.S. citizens, despite their crimes. The significance of this is that it will be the final barrier that needs to be broken, and the final protection that must be dismantled for the final solution to be enacted. If no one steps up and successfully defends the constitutional rights of these American citizens, then all the pieces will be in place for step 3.

3. Deport (and by deport, they mean imprison for life) political dissidents, rivals, business opponents, and maybe just anyone the administration doesn’t like. If they are political dissidents they will claim that they have committed crimes like, “hate speech against America™”, if they are a minority, they will be “associated with gangs”, if they are business rivals it will have committed “economic terrorism”, or something like that. It doesn’t really matter because they eliminated due process in step 1 (remember that was the important factor, not the immigrant dis-tractor), and without due process they don’t have to prove any crimes. Our last defense would have been the simple fact that we are American Citizens, but we established that doesn’t matter in step 2 because they were “bad people”, but now the “bad people” are whoever the administration decides is bad.

The context of the 5th amendment is important to understand its intent:

Historically, the Fifth Amendment draws significant influence from English common law. The grand jury clause specifically dates back to the Magna Carta, and was designed to protect accused persons from prosecution by the English royalty. In keeping with that intention, the Constitution’s framers opted to adapt the grand jury to the Constitution, so as to protect citizens from prosecution by the federal government.
Reagan Library

Even in a Monarchy, which is not the form of government we are supposed to have, the Magna Carta offered protections against the King from prosecuting commoners, which is the origin of this amendment. We aren’t just devolving to pre-revolution America, which had enough disagreements with the rule of King George III that it sparked a war…no we are devolving to a pre-Magna Carta England type of Government. We are descending into middle-age feudalism with complete authoritarian rule… and we aren’t fortunate enough to have a dictator like Alfred the Great.

Reminds me of the Alan MacMasters hoax, famous inventor of the toaster: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_MacMasters_hoax

If you note, I put “businessman” in quotes for both of them because it isn’t the correct term for either of them. It isn’t the correct term for Taylor because it is the wrong pronoun, and it isn’t the correct term for Trump because he seems incapable of running a successful business. It was an intentional construct for ironic parallelism, not an oversight.

Reagan was at least governor of California prior to running for president.

The argument that “you shouldn’t vote for someone just because your favorite celebrity endorses them” seemed like a much more credible argument before the 2016 election when the winning candidate essentially won by literally being a celebrity.

Prior to 2016, Trump was probably best known for being the host of a reality TV show, and being a “businessman”. Taylor Swift is definitely better known, and you could also make a solid argument that she is a better “businessman” as well.

He should definitely be wearing orange, just not Netherlands Orange…

The whole purpose of separation of powers into executive, legislative, and judicial branches is to prevent consolidation of power. It is supposed to be like the 3-way standoff from the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

I think the root problem here is that a justice shouldn’t be allowed to serve until after the president who nominated them is out of office, and if they would be otherwise eligible for another term, would no longer be permitted to run for the presidency while the justice is serving on the court. This would also cut-down on the issue of lifetime appointments by shortening their appointments by 4-8 years.

That and the President obviously shouldn’t have immunity from the law.

What happens with the vacancy on the court while we are waiting for the president to leave office? It gives the legislature plenty of time to argue about the appointment, which they will do anyways.