https://www.breitbart.com/2020-election/2019/10/17/trump-in-texas-left-wants-to-install-justices-who-will-shred-the-constitution/

That's already happened. It was called (by pelosi types) "a living breathing Constitution". Government could write opinions about how each line of the constitution applied "currently" to 'correctly decided cases'.

(highly questioned of course is who's opinion is used when, since there was no official living breathing legal interpretation document)

Democrats already did this and already had claimed the right to continue doing it. They, in effect, are still doing it though they "lost the fight" of attributing their actions to "legal writings that override the Constitution" and now call it a political war they intend to win.

"Congress" could re-decide the Constitution by passing new scott's laws conflicting with old laws (that was "living breathing")

But already County governments had been doing the same. Fairfax County Government - before Sharon Bulova - was LEGALLY FORCED to have a "constitutional advisor" after loosing a lawsuit in court. HOWEVER since OBAMA that "advisor" has gone out the window - there is no cop on hand any longer.

The Dems have a plan. It requires them to take both the White House and the Senate, which is a bit of a stretch, but given the personification of incompetence currently occupying the White House, by no means impossible.

The Constitution does not specify how many judges are on a particular court. Therefore, assuming they win,the Dems will just double the number of judges on each court, and fill all the new seats with Libs. This was nearly impossible before the nuclear option, but now as easy as can be if you have the majority. Good bye Trump judiciary.

Don't tell anyone. We want it to be a suprise.

#1 no one trusts illegal alien run (sometimes chinese funded lets say) democrat politics to edit the Constitution - we all realize it stood un-edited for over 200 years because it didn't need changing, and that anyone trying to make changes is trying to "cut in line"

#2 Democrats want to pass laws by simple majority (50.1% of vote), by the Constitution, require 2/3 majority vote. In many cases a 50.1% vote requires bribing ONLY ONE congressman. But a 2/3 majority vote is un-unsual and that's why it was chosen

2/3 majority votes effect citizen's LEGAL RIGHTS, liberty, freedom - the difference between PRISON and LIFE.

Democrats want to gerrymander who goes to prison to read: "trump, conservatives, the poor we owe money to, foreign visitors who are rich that we capture in nyc, ..."

Democrats want to edit law to read: "Congress can borrow any amount of money for any reason, pay itself any amount, unionize government - and is free to treat non-government workers by a completely different standard"

Democrat Judges are in a heap of trouble. Not deciding cases by law can get them sued and in some cases a death penalty (roman law).

#1 for 2,000 years the law has read that politics in law are illegal (that judges must decide by currently passed law only, and that OLD CASES are decided by the law existing at the time of the crime)

DEMOCRAT JUDGES HAVE BEEN SIDE-STEPPING THE LAW BY USING SELECT JURIES TO DECIDE LAW.

THEY HAVE ALLOWED THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO INSTRUCT JURIES - RATHER THREATEN JURIES**

THEY HAVE ALLOWED FAKE MATTERS (both litigants in on the crime) TO HAVE LAW DECIDED BY JURY, awarding gov workers in the process, stealing from the taxpayer

(That if they do not decide the case to the State's likings they will be jailed. No that isn't a joke it's happened now perhaps millions of times now: it is regular practice in democrat areas to "instruct" (threaten) juries.)

Ad quaestionem facti non respondent judices; ad quaestionem legis non respondent
juratores - The judges do not answer to a question of fact; the jury do not ans
wer to a question of Law.

i can't stress enough how illegal it is to have a jury decide law or length of sentence: it is done by democrats and only done when an opponent of any kind is across the table

in a true Ancient Greek democracy jury could decide law

but in a true ancient Greek democracy the number of random voters needed depended upon the law, fairly chosen to (not consist of only those effected), and THE PENALTY FOR CHEATING WAS DEATH

today we don't even have a real death penalty: there is no consequence for even breaching the Constitution for most Congress people

a true democracy can't be run when your in a society where it isn't safe to walk down the streets at night or go to court (in court, you might get raped)

Yes, the doofus who ignores the emoluments clause, subverts the impeachment process, installs travel bans based on religion, criticizes the birthright citizenship clause, bans reporters for writing opinions he hates, talks about arresting journalists, works with hostile foreign powers to manipulate the electorate, and claims he is above the law- what a great spokesman for upholding the constitution.

A spokesman fit for white trash morons who’ll believe anything!

in a true Ancient Greek democracy a jury would execute (kill) an attorney general threatening to use military if they "did not decide correctly"

in a true Ancient Greek democracy a jury would execute (kill) an attorney general threatening to use military if they "did not decide correctly"

(the jury was liable to a death penalty if they decided in their own self interest in an important matter ... it goes without saying that a left leaning man threatening the jury to decide not by topic but by threat, would get a death penalty)

r4tg4tr34 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> in a true Ancient Greek democracy a jury would
> execute (kill) an attorney general threatening to
> use military if they "did not decide correctly"

Or maybe home schooling. Regardless, society failed this kid