The Felon refuses to support Ukraine in its fight for democracy against Putin; but is more than happy to support Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with $billions in military hardware paid by American taxpayers and losses of American lives. See what a $450,000,000 plane and $2,000,000,000 will get you from the Felon.
I suspect that the emoluments you mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg. The Felon takes from the Treasury to pay for this war, or puts our national security up for sale as in the UAE chips deal, and then collects cash from the parties you mentioned to benefit himself and his crime family. Socialize the costs, privatize the benefits--that's his game and always has been. Garden-variety rent seeking and money laundering seem quaint in comparison. His corruption knows no bounds.
Trump Says U.S. Went to War to Pre-Empt Iranian Attacks [NYT]
And here's why that doesn't fly: the same rationale could be used in bad faith against any regime anywhere, any time, just by saying that there were or were not planned attacks. There was no intel projecting immanent attacks right now or ... why did the FBI fire its staff that specifically tracked Iranian threats last week? Why did Trump give us three other reasons when clearly an immanent deadly threat would be the worst of those? Why was one of those reasons impending nuclear ability after telling us that had been obliterated last year?
Bull shit, I say. He was on a roll and did it because he could. Congress already let him get away with it.
The fact that Congress hasn't officially declared war since 1945 is a huge systemic problem. When you add an unstable chief executive to the mix, be it Nixon or Trump, disaster often ensues.
It appears likely that the Iranian theocratic regime will not collapse and that US will be faced with a ground escalation if regime change becomes the stated objective. Mission creep and regional escalation seem the most likely scenarios at the moment.
This is truly a can of snakes. Where to start? I say it starts with the citizen. We elected Trump twice, knowing the kind of person he is. Trump is/was unworthy and unqualified to be president even once. Don’t tell me that voters couldn’t tell what kind of person Trump is. I know white collar people who saw this and voted for him anyhow, hoping to get a tax break. So we need to be better citizens, elect better human beings to office and the rest will follow. But that is admittedly a tough ask.
It's true that Trump's acts of war are "illegal" regardless of "whether [they were] approved by Congress or not." But it's vitally important to also see and say why that's true.
The People acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. “establish[ed our] Constitution” (Preamble); established that all federal “Laws” must “be made in Pursuance” of “this Constitution” (Article VI); established “the supreme Law of the Land” (i.e., “this Constitution,” federal “Laws” and “Treaties”) (Article VI); established that all “Judges in every State shall be bound” by “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI); established that the President always in all official conduct must act only to “preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II); and established that “all executive and judicial Officers” and all legislators and (state and federal) always in all official conduct are “bound” to “support this Constitution” (Article VI).
Supporting our Constitution is the very center of the core purpose and power of every public servant, state and federal, and our Constitution established that any "Treaties" become part of the supreme law of the land when they have been approved by "two thirds of the Senators present" (Article II). No part of the supreme law of the land can be violated by any public servant(s), including even Congress. That was the point of much of the writing of Chief Justice John Marshall for SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison in 1803:
“The constitution is” necessarily the “superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means.” So “the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law,” and “courts” cannot “close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law.” “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
Any “act of the legislature” (any purported law purportedly granting the president any power) that is “repugnant to the constitution, is void.” So any “act of” any purported public servant “repugnant to the constitution, is void.” Any purported theory or doctrine of presidential (or judicial) power that is “repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
I am talking about international law, as in the UN Charter, which states:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
In addition, under an amendment to the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, aggression is described as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”
There are also specific measures against attacking civilians, and against assassinating a head of state.
Of course,neither the US nor Israel are signatories to the ICC, and neither have any respect for the UN.
My point, again, is even if Congress approved this war, it would still be illegal.
Right, Jason. But it's important to see and say why and how the UN Charter governs our public servants. The UN Charter governs our public servants only because our Constitution says it does. Only "Treaties" that were approved by "two thirds of the Senators present" (Article II) are binding on us. Once a treaty has been approved by 2/3 of Senators, it becomes part of "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI). My point is that the approval of Congress of any given act of war doesn't necessarily mean such action or approval is legal. Any act of war and any congressional authorization for an act of war must comply with the supreme law of the land.
We keep hearing cries of 'unconstitutional' 'illegal', 'pre-emptive' and against international law. What we do not hear is that any body or institution has stepped forward to put an end to it. Putting our country at war at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu (Trump said it) is a poor reason. This must be stopped.
I believe the people have the desire and will to add teeth to checks and balances but that Congress has no reason to do so. After all, one of those members might be president someday or have colleagues who will be.
Taking any bold action these days is anathema because SOMEBODY will be upset. And when the "other side" is upset (meaning Republicans), they never shut up about it, whereas Democrats who want to get along talk about how they WILL fix things that they will never fix. It's just not in their best interests to have a functioning and efficient government, let alone a just democracy.
You write, “The solution to the problem of an imperial, lawless presidency and an indifferent Congress is political.” Why not write the next obvious sentence and suggest impeachment?
The War Powers Resolution is important, but it's not controlling here. The essence of the Resolution is merely to reiterate some of the most relevant parts of the plain text of our Constitution. Moreover, any resolution or law passed by a past Congress can be changed by a present or future Congress. Our Constitution cannot be changed by any public servant. As the Constitution established, the Constitution, itself, is the "the supreme Law of the Land" regarding war powers.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress, alone, “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” to the U.S. government. The People expressly granted to Congress particular legislative powers, including the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal [authorize privateering], and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn’t necessary or isn’t proper). That is why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws [that are] necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere “war” or merely “declaring war” is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work here is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
For reasons that are vital to our Constitution and our safety and liberty, the People in Article II expressly “vested” in the “President” only “executive Power.” The People also expressly limited all executive power to the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and “faithfully [serve to] preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution.” That’s it. Nothing in our Constitution gave any president any power to start wars or other conflicts of his own choosing.
Regarding acts of war, “executive Power” means merely the power to “be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69, this “authority” actually “amount[s] to nothing more than” making the President the “first General and admiral” of the U.S., in striking contrast with the power “of the British king [which] extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution [were vested exclusively in] the legislature.”
Whenever the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to commit acts of war, he obviously and necessarily almost always is required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially from late 1788 through the early 1800’s when individual states were much more powerful than the national government). Article I clarified that any “State” even “without the Consent of Congress” may unilaterally “engage in War” if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Only if the U.S. is being “actually invaded” or it is “in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” does our Constitution permit the President to commit acts of war without obtaining authorization from Congress.
The foregoing restrictions do not mean that the President must remain silent. The People commanded the President to provide information and make recommendations: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the president thinks acts of war are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
Many know that the letter of the Constitution (the paramount law of this nation) expressly requires the division of powers between state and federal governments (known as “federalism”) and the division of powers between the three departments of government at each level (known as “separation of powers”). But false prophets of executive power would have us all forget the vital spirit of the law that limits all powers of all our public servants.
To encourage Americans to ratify our original Constitution, many of America’s best and brightest reminded others of the insights Montesquieu offered (and Americans heeded) in The Spirit of the Laws in 1754. James Madison (quoting Montesquieu) famously highlighted in Federalist No. 47 the great danger inherent in any “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,” regardless of “whether [such hands are] of one [person], a few [people], or many [people].” Such accumulation of powers is “the very definition of tyranny.”
Madison (quoting Montesquieu) also emphasized the great danger inherent in even lesser accumulations of power. “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” “[T]here can be no liberty, because . . . the same” person or persons would exercise “tyrannical” legislative powers and then “execute them in a tyrannical manner.” Where “the power of judging” is “joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the [people] would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator.” Where the power to judge is “joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.”
As a result, Madison (and many others) emphasized that “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” For decades, the framers of state and federal constitutions devoted considerable effort to limiting and separating powers. That is exactly why every state and federal Constitution did and does divide and interweave the powers of the three distinct departments (branches).
Literally everything in our original Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed and written into the paramount law of the land to harness all power of all public servants to serve the public good by securing the safety and liberty of every generation of the People. Madison repeatedly highlighted this crucial truth implicit in our entire Constitution. “We the People of the United States” in June 1788 did “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Harnessing the power of the People and all our public servants to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is the entire point of the entirety of our Constitution.
The Supreme Court went on record with the absolute immunity finding that, in some obscure language, the Constitution in essence says: "There are three equal branches of government, If each is equal, no branch can tell another branch what to do. Constitution be damned; each branch is entitled to its own interpretation of the language."
There is no accepted way to remove Congress, but the executive and each judge can individually be removed by impeachment. But perhaps, as an "official act" the immune President could dissolve Congress (or deport selected members?). Such action would be subject to a potential impeachment. But any member leaning for impeachment or conviction would be tagging themself for deportation (or execution? (if done officially)). Can legislation fix anything under this rubric?
And, to take it to a logical extreme, Trump himself, by recognizing he was elected in 2020 (even if not sworn in) admits he was not eligible for election a third time (22nd Amendment). So Constitution certainly is not law of the land. To "serve" as President in 2028 and on, even if he wanted to adhere to the Constitution, he just has to avoid being "elected". Easily accomplished if named Speaker of the House. We may be stuck, even with a conservative reading of the words (not the intent) of the Document, if his health allows, he could continue to "serve" in the post.
I tell you this: the man does not want the job right now. He is not going to want it all over again in 3 years--he will be itching to get out, right after he pardons himself.
George, the Constitution does provide for a way to remove members of Congress. That's the point of elections: the people have the power to choose all our elected representatives, which includes the power to remove those who work against our interests or fail to work in our interests. The House of Representatives has that name because they are the most accountable to the people. The entire House can be removed every 2 years. So can 1/3 of the Senate. Even the president can be removed after 4 years without resorting to impeachment. Moreover, the People in our Constitution required the president to leave office after 2 terms. We've already done everything that needs to be done to remove Trump at the end of his current term.
I want a simpler explanation. I'm trying to understand. I will reread this a few times and see what cream rises to the top so I can articulate with clarity when my sister-in-law (who taught American History and Government for 35 years in Buffalo, NY) tells me "The president is well within his legal right to do what he did and does not need permission from congress. He has to get their approval within 60 days after the action but not before." Is she correct?
The Felon refuses to support Ukraine in its fight for democracy against Putin; but is more than happy to support Netanyahu, Saudi Arabia and Qatar with $billions in military hardware paid by American taxpayers and losses of American lives. See what a $450,000,000 plane and $2,000,000,000 will get you from the Felon.
I suspect that the emoluments you mentioned are only the tip of the iceberg. The Felon takes from the Treasury to pay for this war, or puts our national security up for sale as in the UAE chips deal, and then collects cash from the parties you mentioned to benefit himself and his crime family. Socialize the costs, privatize the benefits--that's his game and always has been. Garden-variety rent seeking and money laundering seem quaint in comparison. His corruption knows no bounds.
Trump Says U.S. Went to War to Pre-Empt Iranian Attacks [NYT]
And here's why that doesn't fly: the same rationale could be used in bad faith against any regime anywhere, any time, just by saying that there were or were not planned attacks. There was no intel projecting immanent attacks right now or ... why did the FBI fire its staff that specifically tracked Iranian threats last week? Why did Trump give us three other reasons when clearly an immanent deadly threat would be the worst of those? Why was one of those reasons impending nuclear ability after telling us that had been obliterated last year?
Bull shit, I say. He was on a roll and did it because he could. Congress already let him get away with it.
Jimmy Kimmel had a much better name for this fiasco: Operation Epsteino Distracto.
The fact that Congress hasn't officially declared war since 1945 is a huge systemic problem. When you add an unstable chief executive to the mix, be it Nixon or Trump, disaster often ensues.
It appears likely that the Iranian theocratic regime will not collapse and that US will be faced with a ground escalation if regime change becomes the stated objective. Mission creep and regional escalation seem the most likely scenarios at the moment.
This is truly a can of snakes. Where to start? I say it starts with the citizen. We elected Trump twice, knowing the kind of person he is. Trump is/was unworthy and unqualified to be president even once. Don’t tell me that voters couldn’t tell what kind of person Trump is. I know white collar people who saw this and voted for him anyhow, hoping to get a tax break. So we need to be better citizens, elect better human beings to office and the rest will follow. But that is admittedly a tough ask.
This was is illegal by international law and by the UN Charter, whether it is approved by Congress or not.
It is all the worse for the fact that the two countries who have colluded to commit genocide in Gaza are now killing civilians in yet another country.
It's true that Trump's acts of war are "illegal" regardless of "whether [they were] approved by Congress or not." But it's vitally important to also see and say why that's true.
The People acting as the supreme legislative body for the U.S. “establish[ed our] Constitution” (Preamble); established that all federal “Laws” must “be made in Pursuance” of “this Constitution” (Article VI); established “the supreme Law of the Land” (i.e., “this Constitution,” federal “Laws” and “Treaties”) (Article VI); established that all “Judges in every State shall be bound” by “the supreme Law of the Land” (Article VI); established that the President always in all official conduct must act only to “preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution" (Article II); and established that “all executive and judicial Officers” and all legislators and (state and federal) always in all official conduct are “bound” to “support this Constitution” (Article VI).
Supporting our Constitution is the very center of the core purpose and power of every public servant, state and federal, and our Constitution established that any "Treaties" become part of the supreme law of the land when they have been approved by "two thirds of the Senators present" (Article II). No part of the supreme law of the land can be violated by any public servant(s), including even Congress. That was the point of much of the writing of Chief Justice John Marshall for SCOTUS in Marbury v. Madison in 1803:
“The constitution is” necessarily the “superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means.” So “the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law,” and “courts” cannot “close their eyes on the constitution, and see only [some other purported] law.” “Certainly all those who have framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
Any “act of the legislature” (any purported law purportedly granting the president any power) that is “repugnant to the constitution, is void.” So any “act of” any purported public servant “repugnant to the constitution, is void.” Any purported theory or doctrine of presidential (or judicial) power that is “repugnant to the constitution, is void.”
I am talking about international law, as in the UN Charter, which states:
“All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
In addition, under an amendment to the founding treaty of the International Criminal Court, aggression is described as “the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations.”
There are also specific measures against attacking civilians, and against assassinating a head of state.
Of course,neither the US nor Israel are signatories to the ICC, and neither have any respect for the UN.
My point, again, is even if Congress approved this war, it would still be illegal.
Right, Jason. But it's important to see and say why and how the UN Charter governs our public servants. The UN Charter governs our public servants only because our Constitution says it does. Only "Treaties" that were approved by "two thirds of the Senators present" (Article II) are binding on us. Once a treaty has been approved by 2/3 of Senators, it becomes part of "the supreme Law of the Land" (Article VI). My point is that the approval of Congress of any given act of war doesn't necessarily mean such action or approval is legal. Any act of war and any congressional authorization for an act of war must comply with the supreme law of the land.
We keep hearing cries of 'unconstitutional' 'illegal', 'pre-emptive' and against international law. What we do not hear is that any body or institution has stepped forward to put an end to it. Putting our country at war at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu (Trump said it) is a poor reason. This must be stopped.
I believe the people have the desire and will to add teeth to checks and balances but that Congress has no reason to do so. After all, one of those members might be president someday or have colleagues who will be.
Taking any bold action these days is anathema because SOMEBODY will be upset. And when the "other side" is upset (meaning Republicans), they never shut up about it, whereas Democrats who want to get along talk about how they WILL fix things that they will never fix. It's just not in their best interests to have a functioning and efficient government, let alone a just democracy.
Mr. Finucane,
You write, “The solution to the problem of an imperial, lawless presidency and an indifferent Congress is political.” Why not write the next obvious sentence and suggest impeachment?
OPEN IMPEACHMENT SEASON!! It is well past time!!
The War Powers Resolution is important, but it's not controlling here. The essence of the Resolution is merely to reiterate some of the most relevant parts of the plain text of our Constitution. Moreover, any resolution or law passed by a past Congress can be changed by a present or future Congress. Our Constitution cannot be changed by any public servant. As the Constitution established, the Constitution, itself, is the "the supreme Law of the Land" regarding war powers.
In Article I, the People vested in Congress, alone, “All legislative Powers” that the People “granted” to the U.S. government. The People expressly granted to Congress particular legislative powers, including the power to “declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal [authorize privateering], and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water” and to “define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.”
The powers of Congress also include authorizing executive action that is necessary and proper in relation to the enumerated powers (and prohibiting executive action that isn’t necessary or isn’t proper). That is why Article I expressly emphasizes that “Congress shall have Power” to “make all Laws [that are] necessary and proper for carrying into Execution [all] Powers [of Congress], and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof” (including the executive and judicial branches).
So the meaning or existence of mere “war” or merely “declaring war” is barely, if at all, relevant. The primary principle at work here is the separation of powers for the purpose of preserving our liberties.
For reasons that are vital to our Constitution and our safety and liberty, the People in Article II expressly “vested” in the “President” only “executive Power.” The People also expressly limited all executive power to the President’s duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed” and “faithfully [serve to] preserve, protect and defend [our] Constitution.” That’s it. Nothing in our Constitution gave any president any power to start wars or other conflicts of his own choosing.
Regarding acts of war, “executive Power” means merely the power to “be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States.” As Alexander Hamilton emphasized in Federalist No. 69, this “authority” actually “amount[s] to nothing more than” making the President the “first General and admiral” of the U.S., in striking contrast with the power “of the British king [which] extends to the DECLARING of war and to the RAISING and REGULATING of fleets and armies, all which, by the Constitution [were vested exclusively in] the legislature.”
Whenever the President exercises "executive Power" as the "Commander in Chief" to commit acts of war, he obviously and necessarily almost always is required to act under express authorization by Congress. An exception applies to the President to the same extent as it applied to state governors (especially from late 1788 through the early 1800’s when individual states were much more powerful than the national government). Article I clarified that any “State” even “without the Consent of Congress” may unilaterally “engage in War” if “actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.” Only if the U.S. is being “actually invaded” or it is “in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay” does our Constitution permit the President to commit acts of war without obtaining authorization from Congress.
The foregoing restrictions do not mean that the President must remain silent. The People commanded the President to provide information and make recommendations: “He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient.” If the president thinks acts of war are necessary and expedient, he must make the case to Congress. If he needs help, “he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices.”
Many know that the letter of the Constitution (the paramount law of this nation) expressly requires the division of powers between state and federal governments (known as “federalism”) and the division of powers between the three departments of government at each level (known as “separation of powers”). But false prophets of executive power would have us all forget the vital spirit of the law that limits all powers of all our public servants.
To encourage Americans to ratify our original Constitution, many of America’s best and brightest reminded others of the insights Montesquieu offered (and Americans heeded) in The Spirit of the Laws in 1754. James Madison (quoting Montesquieu) famously highlighted in Federalist No. 47 the great danger inherent in any “accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands,” regardless of “whether [such hands are] of one [person], a few [people], or many [people].” Such accumulation of powers is “the very definition of tyranny.”
Madison (quoting Montesquieu) also emphasized the great danger inherent in even lesser accumulations of power. “There can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates,” or, “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers.” “[T]here can be no liberty, because . . . the same” person or persons would exercise “tyrannical” legislative powers and then “execute them in a tyrannical manner.” Where “the power of judging” is “joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the [people] would be exposed to arbitrary control, for the judge would then be the legislator.” Where the power to judge is “joined to the executive power, the judge might behave with all the violence of an oppressor.”
As a result, Madison (and many others) emphasized that “the preservation of liberty requires that the three great departments of power should be separate and distinct.” For decades, the framers of state and federal constitutions devoted considerable effort to limiting and separating powers. That is exactly why every state and federal Constitution did and does divide and interweave the powers of the three distinct departments (branches).
Literally everything in our original Constitution and Bill of Rights was designed and written into the paramount law of the land to harness all power of all public servants to serve the public good by securing the safety and liberty of every generation of the People. Madison repeatedly highlighted this crucial truth implicit in our entire Constitution. “We the People of the United States” in June 1788 did “ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America” to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Harnessing the power of the People and all our public servants to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity is the entire point of the entirety of our Constitution.
The Supreme Court went on record with the absolute immunity finding that, in some obscure language, the Constitution in essence says: "There are three equal branches of government, If each is equal, no branch can tell another branch what to do. Constitution be damned; each branch is entitled to its own interpretation of the language."
There is no accepted way to remove Congress, but the executive and each judge can individually be removed by impeachment. But perhaps, as an "official act" the immune President could dissolve Congress (or deport selected members?). Such action would be subject to a potential impeachment. But any member leaning for impeachment or conviction would be tagging themself for deportation (or execution? (if done officially)). Can legislation fix anything under this rubric?
And, to take it to a logical extreme, Trump himself, by recognizing he was elected in 2020 (even if not sworn in) admits he was not eligible for election a third time (22nd Amendment). So Constitution certainly is not law of the land. To "serve" as President in 2028 and on, even if he wanted to adhere to the Constitution, he just has to avoid being "elected". Easily accomplished if named Speaker of the House. We may be stuck, even with a conservative reading of the words (not the intent) of the Document, if his health allows, he could continue to "serve" in the post.
I tell you this: the man does not want the job right now. He is not going to want it all over again in 3 years--he will be itching to get out, right after he pardons himself.
George, the Constitution does provide for a way to remove members of Congress. That's the point of elections: the people have the power to choose all our elected representatives, which includes the power to remove those who work against our interests or fail to work in our interests. The House of Representatives has that name because they are the most accountable to the people. The entire House can be removed every 2 years. So can 1/3 of the Senate. Even the president can be removed after 4 years without resorting to impeachment. Moreover, the People in our Constitution required the president to leave office after 2 terms. We've already done everything that needs to be done to remove Trump at the end of his current term.
But not the other 2 equal branches
I want a simpler explanation. I'm trying to understand. I will reread this a few times and see what cream rises to the top so I can articulate with clarity when my sister-in-law (who taught American History and Government for 35 years in Buffalo, NY) tells me "The president is well within his legal right to do what he did and does not need permission from congress. He has to get their approval within 60 days after the action but not before." Is she correct?