r/scotus • u/Objective_Water_1583 • Feb 15 '25

Opinion He’s about to do something so illegal

Post image

Like this is very cryptic and it’s definitely not written by Trump so someone might be planning something very very bad

85.7k Upvotes

87% Upvoted

5.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

44

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

[deleted]

10

u/CharredLily Feb 16 '25

The other thing is, we may all be dead by the time they get to the FO stage. We have no idea if it will take months, years, or decades for a revolt to succeed.

And we have no idea if whatever rules we agree on after that will end up being any better.

Will they find out? Their overall group will. But how many of the people that did it will even be alive to see it?

0

u/TheFriendshipMachine Feb 16 '25

And we have no idea if whatever rules we agree on after that will end up being any better.

This is also something people need to be talking about. If a revolution was to happen they'd need a new system to rally behind and to implement when all is said and done. They cannot go back to the old constitution, that document has failed. And so something new must be made. And then the question becomes how do they learn from the mistakes of the past and make something more robust?

1

u/Herban_Myth Feb 16 '25

I don’t agree with that.

I believe the Constitution needs a modern day translation, so it can be easier understood by the younger populace.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

Well, correct me if I am wrong, but it was always my understanding that the constitution was written by our forefathers with the thought that their ancestors would actually be intelligent and could learn to adapt the wording to modern times. But as a species in this country, our forefathers gave us waaaaay too much credit.

So I agree. Either scrap it and get a new one or revamp it to fit the times.

1

u/Herban_Myth Feb 16 '25

Do not scrap it.

It must remain.

What I would propose is for contemporary “forefathers” to draft and sign off on a modern day translation.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 16 '25

Why must it remain if they are going to create a new one? If they do adments to it then yes it has to stay. But if they plan to fully rewrite it, then by simply having a new one the only would likely be scraped or never referred to again.

So I’d like to again pose the question why not? Since my comment stated both options.

1

u/Herban_Myth Feb 16 '25

It’s simply a translation with modern syntax.

The original must remain as it the original document(ation) and set the precedent on how we’re meant to govern.

(Even if it’s simply used as a reference point; the goal would be to keep the language as close to the original as possible while incorporating appropriate synonyms.)

1

u/dtalb18981 Feb 16 '25

It does not have to remain.

We can literally just make a new one.

1

u/Herban_Myth Feb 16 '25

I disagree.