US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

US president also to seek constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and various officeholders

Joe Biden will announce plans to reform the US supreme court on Monday, Politico reported, citing two people familiar with the matter, adding that the US president was likely to back term limits for justices and an enforceable code of ethics.

Biden said earlier this week during an Oval Office address that he would call for reform of the court.

He is also expected to seek a constitutional amendment to limit immunity for presidents and some other officeholders, Politico reported, in the aftermath of a July supreme court ruling that presidents have broad immunity from prosecution.

Biden will make the announcement in Texas on Monday and the specific proposals could change, the report added.

  • Atom@lemmy.world
    1485·
    3 months ago

    InB4 “WhY DiDn’t hE Do iT WhEn hE HaD ThE MaJoRiTy?” Because he’s calling for constitutional amendments that require a 2/3rds support in Congress and the SCOTUS may finally be disliked enough to get some GOP members to support reform, especially if it comes with limiting Biden’s own immunity.

    • Drunemeton@lemmy.worldEnglish
      52·
      3 months ago

      His first year:

      1. The American Rescue Plan Act and extending existing Covid-19 programs
      2. Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act
      3. Bills to avoid a government shutdown and keep the federal government running
      4. Juneteenth National Independence Day Act
      5. Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act
    • ulkesh@lemmy.world
      16·
      3 months ago

      …and 3/4 of the states. Not only will it take years to accomplish, the uneducated people of the country won’t stand for any amendment that a “librul” came up with. And then everyone will forget or stop caring.

      There won’t be another amendment in the next fifty years, as long as MAGA morons exist.

      • ericatty@lemmy.ml
        11·
        3 months ago

        This requirement is what stalls almost all constitutional changes. The last three to pass were 25th 1971 about voting rights for 18 year olds (100 days to pass) the 26th in 1967 about presidential succession (just under 3 years to pass) The last last one (27th) was added 1992 after almost 203 years of meeting the other requirements (It has to do with sitting Congress not being able to raise their own salaries, increases are delayed to the next term. )

        There are 6 amendments still sitting out there awaiting ratification by the states.

    • aberrate_junior_beatnik@midwest.socialEnglish
      1321·
      3 months ago

      I mean the critique behind “why didn’t he do it when he had the majority” still applies: calling for a constitutional amendment is ineffectual. There’s no way a constitutional amendment is going to happen in today’s political environment.

      Also the court reform he’s proposing isn’t a constitutional amendment, but since he waited until he didn’t have a majority, that can’t happen either.

      It’s almost like he doesn’t want change.

      • Jiggle_Physics@lemmy.world
        12·
        3 months ago

        Had he done that, it would have been before this blatant level of corruption had surfaced. So it would have been met with with “there is no evidence to merit something this drastic”.

      • Burn_The_Right@lemmy.world
        7·
        3 months ago

        Manchin and Sinema would have blocked it. Our “majority” in the Senate existed only for legislation those two DINOs would allow.