"Own guns"
Republicans have been working on a 30+ year project. 60+ years project.
So what?
The people been working on a 248+ years project. In two years it will be 250. The world's been working on its own projects too. I like smart bets. I'm not betting on the NAZIs.
Can someone ELI Not American?
They’re mocking the fact that the only actions being taken against our authoritarian President have been legal charges.
Our government is designed with three co-equal branches to prevent the consolidation of power of a king. Actions taken by one branch must be checked for constitutionally by the other two. Trump is currently using executive orders (temporary measures of execution) to make these extreme changes to our government.
Congressional Democrats forced a 15-day vote on the constitutionality of Trump’s emergency executive order. The Republican majority in Congress redefined the congressional calendar as one single day to avoid the vote entirely, effectively disabling Congress.
Now Democrats are bringing cases to the courts to challenge the executive orders. There have been 49 cases so far, injunctions have been issued, and most are now being appealed to the Supreme Court. Trump is continuing to defy federal court orders, so there is a contempt of court hearing on Tuesday. Trump himself cannot be charged with a crime, so at most the members of his administration will be charged.
Removing the President requires a majority vote in the House, and 2/3 vote in the Senate. That has never been accomplished in our 250 year old system.
Trump himself cannot be charged with a crime
Why? Because he said so?
No, the supreme Court ruled that the individual who is the president has immunity for actions taken in a presidential capacity. Absolute immunity for exercising presidential powers, and and presumptive for actions taken as the president, pending the prosecutions ability to argue that holding the individual personally liable couldn't possibly infringe of their exercise of constitutional powers, and they have to make that case without referring to intent.
The specific case was about when trump, as president, contacted Governors and law enforcement to try to convince them to overturn the election for him. Under their ruling, since he was acting as the president, they decided you can't consider his intent. So the prosecution would need to argue that there's no possible infringement on constitutional power if the president can be prosecuted for discussing an election, election security, and election interference with Governors and law enforcement.
It is worth pointing out that other governments have prosecuted and removed their presidents, prime ministers, and other heads of state, and their government still function.
This article covers a good assortment of those cases, from Sarkozy to Netanyahu.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/heres-when-other-countries-have-prosecuted-former-leaders
Unfortunately it predates South Korea's most recent crisis, and Netanyahu's use of the war in Gaza to stay in office.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest_of_Yoon_Suk_Yeol
Last I checked, Isreal, South Korea, and France have not collapsed or lost any functionality by those events.
The argument US conservatives love to put forth is "contacting Georgia's governor and asking that he conjure up enough votes to help Trump win, that's an official presidential request, it was totally kosher" is wrong, and no other words other than "wrong" need to be used to describe it. Asking a governor to rig an election is not "the exercise of a constitutional power [that cannot] be infringed on [by] holding the individual personally liable" because it is not a constitutional power being exercised. It is just corruption and authoritarianism.
The argument US conservatives love to put forth is "contacting Georgia's governor and asking that he conjure up enough votes to help Trump win, that's an official presidential request, it was totally kosher" is wrong, and no other words other than "wrong" need to be used to describe it. Asking a governor to rig an election is not "the exercise of a constitutional power [that cannot] be infringed on [by] holding the individual personally liable" because it is not a constitutional power being exercised. It is just corruption and authoritarianism.
The problem is this was ruled on (specifically) by the supreme court. Their interpretation is obviously wrong, but the court has all the same members, so it's unlikely to overrule itself for a while
The supreme court stacked with Trump and Bush appointees, the ones who were installed there explicitly so they would abdicate their responsibilities and dissolve the separation of powers.
When people say they want Democrats to fight harder, what they're asking for is for someone to use the same dirty tricks as Republicans to defend their democratic institutions as opposed to tearing them down. To that end, we ought to wipe our ass with SCOTUS's ruling on presidential immunity. Merchan should have sentenced Trump anyway. Let the Republicans appeal back to SCOTUS, and then wipe our ass with their decision a second time.
It's distasteful to stoop to their level of dirty tricks and stall tactics, but playing by the rules is what fascists always count on to seize power. Even if we have to break our own rules, we should fight them with everything in the proverbial arsenal. The country and its people will not survive if they have their hands tied behind their backs by the paradox of tolerance.
I mean, I agree with all of that... I'm not saying we respect the courts crazy interpretation - but we do have to see the playing board clearly
I know, I didn't mean to sounds argumentative with you. You presented the facts clearly for the OP who asked their question. :)
No. A sitting president can only be charged with impeachment according to the Department of Justice.
Thanks!
I mean, there were two actual assassination attempts.
Don't have to be an American to understand the constitution is more than just a piece of paper.