[jiggawatts]

Every time you see something like this in the headlines, I’d like you to have this thought in the back of your mind: “We have a king. Disrespecting the king must be punished.”

Use that as a reminder that you no longer live in a true representative republic or anything like it, no matter what superficial performative aspects remain. Fundamentally, the USA is now ruled by a King, not a President.

It will remind you of this fun law: https://amp.abc.net.au/article/104135048

It will remind you of what conservatives (“the right”) are fundamentally about: conserving the power of the king and keeping the accumulated wealth of the nobility safe.

You’re watching the birth of a new American Empire of North Pacifica that includes the Kingdom of Canada, the Kingdom of Panama and the Kingdom of Greenland. These will be ruled by princes and princesses that all have the Trump surname.

Again, remember, that the King is openly calling for war to enlarge his kingdom into an empire and the nobles are falling in line.

No one has dared question this or to depose the king.

If the king wills it, then war it is.

[mdp2021]

With regard to your idea, be reminded that Niall Ferguson already eight years ago stated that he was awakened by a friend's joke, "Make America Great Britain Again": he wrote a nice article about the monarchist model already apparent at the time.

I must warn you, though, that the drives remain undercurrents moving in history, and also Europe is living them: do note for example that the idea of "being tracked in all your monetary transactions """for some common good""" " is the translation of free people into "subjects". So: there are concepts about the population and the State that get instantiated in history by political forces and general powers.

[dekhn]

Most big protests in the US happen in the summer, so I think it's worth considering that the large-scale resistance by the populace may actually happen in a few months. I am unclear on what this would look like, for example what level of organization, how regionally distributed, and what level of underlying violence (even peaceful protests) a subset of the protesters will carry out.

One major risk of a peaceful protest that has even a small amount of violence (property damage, etc) is that Trump actively wants to call out the military to break some skulls... and if there is violence, it's hard for the larger community to support the protests (even if the vast majority of people are simply expressing their legal rights to push back against what appears to be a truly tyrannical, unconstitutional government).

[wat10000]

I hope you're right, but the thing I find most distressing about what's happening is how many people are in favor of it. Protests are for converting popular support into official actions. Trump won about half the votes. He didn't seize power in a coup or by holding the legislature at gunpoint. The people gave it to him. Some of those people may have changed their minds since then, but it doesn't seem like there are very many of them.

The real problem isn't Trump, it's the huge number of Americans who think what's happening is great. I don't know how you fix that.

[rsynnott]

I mean honestly even most kings aren’t that oversensitive; you’re really just looking at Thailand. Even fucking Putin isn’t really _this_ thin-skinned. Closest parallel I can think of is maybe Kim Jong Un?

[jiggawatts]

> Even fucking Putin isn’t really _this_ thin-skinned.

Are you kidding?

What's the rate of "accidental" defenestrations amongst billionaires in Russia?

One in ten or so?

[outer_web]

Eh, SCOTUS still has a big opportunity to reign in the power he claims. The district courts are already doing their thing.

Arbitrarily searching and refusing foreign nationals at the border was always an executive power and we have temporarily chosen one who despises anyone not loyal to him. We get to reap the consequences for the next four years.

[freejazz]

What do you mean reign in? Last year they in a shocking overturn of centuries of political thought came to the finding that the presidential is immune from criminal prosecution for his acts as president and then offered no actual guidance on how to determine whether an act was "as president".

[outer_web]

Because power and legal liability are different. He can order a political opponent thrown in prison without cause. He does not have the power to do so, so that person would be freed by a court. Due to the immunity ruling, he is not liable for those actions now or after he leaves office unless he is impeached/convicted.

The extremely vague guidance was in part because SCOTUS only tries to rule on what is in front of them and also because they want any immunity decision to go through them.

[freejazz]

I don't think you got my point (not a big surprise considering how your approach here is) which is that the Supreme Court have not shown an interest in curtailing executive power.

Your posting here is akin to a boiling frog insisting to all the other frogs in the pot that they'll all know when the water is too hot, so they should not worry.

[outer_web]

I'd love to have a discussion with you about it but you seem convinced I have an agenda.

[freejazz]

I'm not sure what one has to do with the other nor why it would be an issue prohibiting a discussion. We might disagree about what your agenda is, but surely everyone has an "agenda". Were your responses not what you wanted to express to me?

I just find that an obtuse response that completely looks past the post its responding to without even acknowledging that fact is a bit disingenuous but, I guess feel free to convince me otherwise if you'd like. I see a lot of your posts in this thread arguing how things will be okay and we aren't in a constitutional crisis yet but that doesn't seem to be a great response to the point that it looks like Trump is driving imminently towards one. Feel free to let me know what I'm missing.

[archagon]

SCOTUS have no way of enforcing their rulings.

[cryptonector]

Depends on the type of ruling. The executive can't make the courts convict people willy nilly. The executive can't make the courts rule in civil cases the way he wants them to.

But mandamus orders against the executive really can't be enforced by the courts, not even the writ of Habeas Corpus -- and famously so, I might add, since Lincoln suspended the writ even though the Constitution says only Congress can do it, and he refused to bring people accused of sabotage or insurrection to the courts.

[outer_web]

Let's cross that bridge if we come to it. Trump is as good at backing down as he is at making asinine claims.

[wat10000]

They already said he has total immunity for official acts. What are they going to do when they ask him to stop doing something and he doesn't? It's not like they can punish him for it.

[outer_web]

Yes, immunity means there are zero downsides for him to try illegal things. That doesn't legalize illegal orders, it just means they all have to wait for their day in court.

[masfuerte]

But what happens after the day in court? What is to stop him carrying on with the illegal policies?

[outer_web]

A few things but your concern is totally valid; we are in a bad place if he does not back down.

1. Executive power has limits. E.g. civil litigation and state law are largely outside his jurisdiction.

2. Agents of the government must follow the law, even if it contradicts an exective order. They open themselves to criminal liability if they don't.

3. Congress. Haha just kidding that's only in the timeline where Harambe is still alive.

[DangitBobby]

1. Order illegal activity carried out by loyal minions

2. Minions jailed for illegal activities

3. Pardon minions, law-abiding judicial forces to drop prosection

4. Go to 1

[wat10000]

What makes it so he has to wait? He’ll make illegal orders, they’ll be carried out, the courts will say no, he’ll ignore them, repeat.

[ttw44]

I will seriously consider in the near future about withdrawing my future plans from the US if the SCOTUS do not show any backbone to this.

[floxy]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monarchy_of_Canada

[cmrdporcupine]

You ain't gonna be denied entry to Canada or the UK for calling Charles or his kids a cunt.