When he comes for the military, Supreme Court, and Congress, that is the trend you want to look for.
Over-exaggerating what Trump does plays into his handbook.
What are your opinions on January 6th? That would include both the fake electors plot and the riot attempting to interrupt congressional proceedings.
There is already plenty reason to be concerned.
> Given the spending that is now on hold was apportioned by Congress, it is likely this will face legal challenges about the scope of presidential power.
"immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate"
Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024), is a landmark decision[1][2] of the Supreme Court of the United States in which the Court determined that presidential immunity from criminal prosecution presumptively extends to all of a president's "official acts" – with absolute immunity for official acts within an exclusive presidential authority that Congress cannot regulate[1][2] such as the pardon, command of the military, execution of laws, or control of the executive branch.
1. Federal employees could refuse, even at the price of being fired, in enough numbers that there isn't a functioning government if he fires them all.
2. Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
3. The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war; if not, then the country just collapses into the states.
(Keep in mind that the military's oath is to the constitution, not to the president. If the president is giving them orders contrary to the constitution - and contrary to a court order stating that the orders are against the constitution - it is far from clear that the military will obey them.)
But if none of those happens, then sure, the president can order whatever he wants.
Sounds like it would be small enough to drown in the bathtub at that point. Mission accomplished.
> Congress could impeach for ignoring the court ruling.
Only if Democrats have a 60 vote majority in the Senate. Not happening. In the last impeachment, Trump argued he was allowed to extort a bribe from a foreign ally by holding up congressionally appropriated funds to benefit his reelection campaign, and as long as he did so with the benefit of the USA in mind, it cannot be grounds for removal via impeachment. The Senate agreed with him and acquitted him of all charges. Why in the world do you think that would go any differently a second time? And who is going to bring those articles? Republicans?
> The people could decide that, if he is going to ignore the constitution, then they're going to ignore him (and the whole federal government), since it's only the constitution that says that they need to listen to the president. If the president tries to enforce it by force, then it becomes a civil war
And herein lies the problem. This appears to be the only path forward if Trump keeps going in this direction and Republicans don't relent. Note he has already argued he has the right to use the military against US citizens.
What if he just ignores the impeachment?
Oh and he's already started firing people from the military...
Shrugging the shoulders is what lead us here, and you keep doing it.
> January 6th, where he was found guilty but didn't receive punishment because he's above the law.
No, he was not. He was acquitted. Twice
https://www.npr.org/sections/trump-impeachment-trial-live-up...
> Oh and he's already started firing people from the military
This is common. For example: Obama
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/obama-fires-tw...
Then you should display more candor in describing these situations rather than be reductionist about it. He was acquitted not because he was not guilty of those things, but because his political allies determined the things he was guilty of were not impeachable.
Trump argued:
"If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment"
As for the second impeachment, this is what Mitch McConnell said:
"There is no question that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day... We have a criminal justice system in this country. We have civil litigation. And former Presidents are not immune from being held accountable by either one... I believe the Senate was right not to grab power the Constitution does not give us."
As a final point, McConnell mentions that we have a criminal justice system to hold him accountable, but Trump argued that impeachment is the only tool that could, and indeed the SCOTUS agreed to a large extent. So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law.
"practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of that day" does not make the thing he did illegal. "so they left it up to the courts", which again is the rule of law.
"So if he can't be held accountable by impeachment, and not by the courts, he's above the law." If the laws does not find someone guilty then that is the rule of law working. Being above the law would be being found guilty and then not having any consequences. He was not found guilty. Period.
Do you want mob rule? Vigilante justice? Or the rule of law?
Let me make it clear, I do not like Trump in the smallest bit, but acting like an authoritarian does not make me a better person.
As for the law, the legal process did not fully play out. We were promised courts would be the appropriate venue by McConnell when he voted to acquit despite saying that the evidence shows he is guilty. That's not really an acquittal in the way you're trying to portray because the only reason the acquittal happened was because McConnell felt the case deserved to be tried in court, not in the Senate.
But where is that trial? It was curtailed due to Trump's election as POTUS, and it was stymied by people he appointed to the court. So how are you going to talk about the rule of law, when justice has been denied to the American people for the crimes committed against us? Where is our trial? It was cancelled because... what's that? He's above the law until he's actually demonstrably bound by it. So far that demonstration has been elusive.
What I want is a trial, with evidence, a judge, and a jury. That's not mob rule.
And furthermore, they were on the brink of total failure many, many times - but always managed to get a lifeline by the actions of indifferent politicians and statesmen - many whom could have stopped them, by simply saying no. They (NSDAP) could not believe what they managed to get away with, and the sheer luck they had.
What we're seeing now is sort of parallel to that, in the way that the people that do care, simply do not seem to take action. Maybe it's the fear of being primaried, maybe it's the fear of personal retribution, maybe they just don't want to rock the boat.