I feel absolutely hopeless

@sarabee1995

SARA....

Will the constitution matter to people who only use it when it benefits them? Do you believe they care about the limits the constitutiom sets forth when they ignore it?

No. This is not made up fear mongering it is the plan they have voiced from their own mouths. The poeple who Donald Surrounds himself with. They are lawless.

They will do away with the constitution if it benefits them. If you believe that facism can't work because of a document they do not uphold, you are sadly naive.

@sarabee1995 the MAGA movement has the majority of the Supreme Court in its pocket though, and if they don't uphold the constitution, that's just a worthless piece of paper. These aren't just goals. The entire pathway towards them has been written out as well and with the right people in the right place all covering for each other, it doesn't matter whether it's legal or not.

I hope you're right that they won't succeed, but the constitution forbidding it is far from a guarantee that it won't happen.

@NerdyPotato The constitution, alone, without an independent judiciary branch that'll enforce it is about as useful against a despot as signing a memorandum in exchange for your nukes in case of a Russian invasion 🙈

@JaggedLittlePill Last I checked, there were 2.1 million active and reserve soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, guardsmen, and guardians who have sworn an oath to support and defend not the President, not the Congress, not the People, not the Laws, but support and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies foreign and dosmestic.

And it is well known now that at the highest levels of our military, conversations took place on what to do four years ago if the Constitutional transition of power was somehow usurped.

We are a nation of laws and no movement nor individual can or would be allowed to change that. Please rest assured of that fact.

@Elessar The US Constitution is *slightly* more powerful than that famous memorandum because there are 2.1 million armed troops backing it up quietly. My oath of office is not to the President or to Congress or to the country or to the People. My oath of office is to support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. This is not a small thing.

@NerdyPotato When did the Supreme Court not uphold the Constitution???

@sarabee1995 So did the president who now promises to abolish it, and half the population voted in favor of that. I doubt the ratio is much different within the army and it's questionable what their oath of half the army is worth when he asks for their help to execute the plan they voted for.

I don't know if that happened yet, although giving the president full immunity certainly came close. But is doesn't matter if they already did. The point is that they easily can.

@sarabee1995 The military has a vertical structure, if the generals at the top are replaced with loyalists, generally those at the bottom will comply. And if they do not or the former generals retain a slice of the army, it's literally a civil war scenario, which isn't exactly a 1:1 replacement for a functional judiciary branch enforcing the provisions of the constitution.

They don't need to uphold it, they just have not to enforce it, or "interpret" it in an arbitrary way that'll equate a non-enforcement. Allowing the president to have immunity for crimes is one way. especially if it'll be used to cover him for something unconstitutional.

@NerdyPotato Come on ... You're saying that President Trump advocated abolishing the Constitution???? I would need to hear that with my own ears.

No, the Supreme Court cannot "easily" ignore the Constitution. And they didn't give "the" President immunity from certain actions in office ... They recognized that "all" presidents need immunity from actions in office in order to function as president.

@Elessar A not insignificant part of my training is the importance of receiving an order, evaluating the legality of that order, and then (and only then) executing on that order. "I was just following orders" is not an excuse for ANYTHING in the US military.

Everyone seems to have their panties all in a twist over this. Presidents are not above the law. SCOTUS simply confirmed that it is Congress' job to try and convict presidents for high crimes and misdemeanors committed in office, not local or state prosecutors.

@sarabee1995 here you go: https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-call-suspend-constitution-gop-debate-chris-christie-1822131

@sarabee1995 This is good. Does it stand also if the law is changed? Is the focus only on legality, or are also your morals a variable in the equation?

Hmm the way it's written simply states that the president can be arbitrarily shielded from prosecution if the SCOTUS itself deems the act an "official" one (without specifying which is the discriminant used). It says nothing about Congress, iirc, that still retains the power to impeach him as before

@NerdyPotato Lol, did you read the article?? In any case, thanks for posting a link to show that he did NOT in fact advocate abolishing the Constitution. Glad we can put that to bed and not worry about it or bring it up anymore. ;)

@Elessar Okay, back during my summer on USS Eisenhower in the northern Arabian Sea ... If I were ordered to develop a mission plan (I was a mission planner) for an action that would essentially be a war crime, then it would be my responsibility to look my chain of command in the eye and say no (and then have a damn good reason why). They would then need to either rescind the order or support the legality of it. This is not done lightly (obviously), but it is my responsibility to carry out all legal orders.

Now the moral question. If during my time in service I have a change of heart and suddenly am a pacifist. Yeah, doesn't matter. I've taken an oath and I need to execute the duties of my office and obey the legal orders of the chain of command and the NCA. Suddenly becoming a pacifist would land me in the brig quickly.

@sarabee1995 Ah good!

That's the second part that concerns me. Hypothetically if a dictator takes over, first thing they do is install loyal generals at the top of the army, second is change the law so that you're basically obligated to follow through with all their whims or be discharged, and things that were illegal before become legal or even mandatory.

The only thing that may stop a similar outcome is if the army divides, but that'd be basically civil war. Or if the army as a whole decide to resist, but that'd also be civil war 🤔

@sarabee1995 okay, not the entire constitution indeed. Just the parts that stand in the way of his other promises, which doesn't really change our point that he won't let the constitution stop him.

Hopefully it still works that way if the higher ups become pacifist as well. It is a little reassuring and I thank you for that, but I won't be convinced until the army takes everyone working towards a police state out of their office.