I didn't say he does. But again, abolishing the Constitution is the only path to staying in power.
> He and his goons can amend
No, they can't. Have you studied the amendment process?
> So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president
That's the point. There can't be another somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's President.
https://billkatz.substack.com/p/discourse-on-voluntary-servi...
But if not one thing is yielded to him, if without any violence he is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and nothing, just as when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term, or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time, regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally.
> If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term
This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional.
> or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time
This is just hand-waving.
> regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough.
How will it be legitimate at all?
> I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.
My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.
This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.
Note that the case is about criminal prosecution. Congress retains the power specified in the Constitution to impeach and remove the President.
At this point, having already misunderstood our electoral system, you don't seem to be in a strong position to lecture US citizens about US law.
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: *but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*" [emphasis mine]
Not to mention, the decision for ANY evidence that could discern an act from being official, unofficial or personal as being inadmissible in court, and that we simply have to take the Executive's word for whether an act was "official" or not, is such sovereign immunity that we might as well backtrack our historical roots.
Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
I am not your brother in Christ.
> the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional
I wasn't defending the decision. There are plenty of Supreme Court decisions that I consider to be badly wrong.
> Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about.
It's an expression lol
>"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about."
He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort.
That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.
I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve.
> which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure
I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though.
If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans.
> there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored
Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office.
> you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort
A link is not a retort, valid or invalid.
> you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position
No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.
>"which nobody is going to accept"
I respect your blind optimism.
The rest is moot for a reply.