The year is 2024. Biden just declared the Republican party an insurrection.

They are all jailed. The juries are instructed that their existence is an insurrection and not voting to convict would also be insurrection, since Biden gets to define insurrection.

"This is fine. The framers intended for a broad authority of the executive" - Goomshill

" I am PaRDs resident Patriot" - also Goom, who loves feudalism apparently

If Joe Biden wanted to right now, he could declare that the fact Colorado had declared Trump an illegitimate president for actions Trump took while in office puts Colorado in a de facto state of rebellion since they no longer acknowledge the lawful authority of the federal government. Joe could order the military to mobilize to put down a rebellion and preparing to raid border forts in Colorado and pass out bayonets and wheel out the 12 pounder cannons to fight another civil war. And as long as he got 24 Democratic holdouts on an impeachment vote, he'd remain in office, sure.



Their desire to be safeguarded against a tyrant is why they gave us the impeachment power
The necessity for a unitary executive to act decisively in times of war and insurrection and to guide diplomacy and see laws executed faithfully is why they gave us a presidency.

What you're crucially missing in all this is that the American republic is not premised in some perfect self-sustaining system of checks and balances that are infallible and unbreakable. The American republic is premised in giving us enough safeguards that we can bounce back from the breaking point and let sane people prevail. Only as long as there's a shared civic spirit of a country willing to be ruled by the will of the majority with respect to the minority, even if they personally disagree with the results. Absent that, it all falls apart. The president is assumed by founders to be a sane and competent individual chosen because he has the nation's best interests at heart, and the elector process of the states meant to ensure that. The laws aren't aimed at a wildman theory of a dangerous executive that needs to be constrained. That would be nonsensical, particularly today. If Joe Biden wanted to wreck havoc, he carries the nuclear football.

the republican party is an actual criminal organization. since when is refusing to hold people accountable "in the best interest of the country" ???



This post was edited by gnarjay on Dec 29 2023 02:55pm

If you went through your civics classes and thought the founders wanted or intended for a president that could do these things, then you either slept through your classes or they failed you.

What you're describing is literally the exact opposite of the discussions around the office of the presidency. They not only expected a president to eventually attempt to be a tyrant, they knew it would happen and designed the office with the express purpose of preventing that from happening.

If you went through a civics class and your takeaway is that the founders wanted or intended a single government form or philosophy then you definitely got scammed. The discussions of the office of the presidency were just like all the other compromises, done between wildly differing views and arguments. And that compromise was to have a unitary executive granted powers like being commander-in-chief, to commission officers, to see the laws executed, to receive diplomats, etc, but not granted the power to make laws or spend money and to be subject to impeachment and removal.
They understood that a deliberative body was slow moving and indecisive because the constitutional convention was proving that to them all too well. And they were similarly wary of the dangers of a king with limitless powers. So they reached a compromise.


Are you just today learning that you live in a constitutional democratic republic led by a president, not a pure direct democracy where all the minorities get thrown into a well?

Oof, the fact that you didn't even respond to what I said and just made up a position really shows how much dissonance you have over this opinion.

The problem with our discussion is not that I'm misunderstanding you, it's that you're fundamentally confused.



The Insurrection Act empowers the President to put down with force any rebellion or insurrection.

Here is the definition of insurrection per the U.S.C



It is a crime to commit insurrection, and it could potentially bar Trump from holding office, but this is a moot point as Trump is not being charged with insurrection as a crime. Ergo, he is not barred from running for office.

A secondary question is whether or not the President, who is the Executive branch personified, falls under an "officer" of the United States. Personally, I lean towards no, and the proper recourse for a rogue executive is clearly spelled out in the Constitution by way of impeachment. But if that ever becomes a matter before the Supreme Court it will be a fascinating decision to watch.

If there's one thing the founders were crystal clear about its that the president should be able to be a king unless two thirds voted to remove him.

Yep, I think it was Jackson who wrote that