[wonderwonder]

The executive could be stopped at any time by the courts or congress. But the democratically elected congress chooses not to. So the majority that was elected are doing what they think is right. That's how our US democracy works.

Same with the courts, executive is elected by the people and so is the senate. They select and approve the judges, same as it ever was.

I am in no way defending everything I am simply stating that there are checks and balances but many people just don't like the decisions that they are making. Doesn't mean they are not there though.

[walkabout]

Can you point to any parts of the constitution that, if ignored, would represent the US state based on that same constitution no longer functioning correctly, or not as a continuation of the same state as before? If so, why those parts but not, apparently, broad swaths of the rest of it?

If not… I think you’re operating under a uselessly-broad notion of what constitutes US democracy “working”.

[edit] what this really gets at is legitimacy, which is the ultimate arbiter of who’s in charge and how effectively they may wield power. I find the idea that a state founded on a constitutional document as its fundamental claim to legitimacy ignoring major parts of that document isn’t at least overtly flirting with either a loss of legitimacy or a transition to a different state with a different basis for legitimacy (either of which seem to me to clearly count as a failure of that original state)… puzzling.

[sjsdaiuasgdia]

This is an affront to the rule of law and equal protection under the law. It is not okay for congress or the courts to acquiesce. We are supposed to be a nation of laws.

Congress and the courts are derelict in their responsibility to honor the rule of law.