Constitution is pretty clear on that question. The problem is that in order to persecute president you need congress to act.
The constitution simply doesn't account for a situation, when congress willingly ceases vital functions. To be fair, it took over 200 years for this edge case to occur.
If this was a software we would marvel at its stability.
Given that all three branches of government seems to be moving in lockstep on it, (with the military, the secret police, and the police all behind them), you are right - it is clear on that question.
It's clear to all them that, no, anything he does goes, and no, the 14th doesn't actually mean anything.
That's not how I parse it from a cursory reading, but who am I to nay-say the king?
Constitution is pretty clear on that question. The problem is that in order to persecute president you need congress to act.
The constitution simply doesn't account for a situation, when congress willingly ceases vital functions. To be fair, it took over 200 years for this edge case to occur.
If this was a software we would marvel at its stability.
200 years isn’t a very long time in British historical terms.
> Constitution is pretty clear on that question.
Given that all three branches of government seems to be moving in lockstep on it, (with the military, the secret police, and the police all behind them), you are right - it is clear on that question.
It's clear to all them that, no, anything he does goes, and no, the 14th doesn't actually mean anything.
That's not how I parse it from a cursory reading, but who am I to nay-say the king?
[flagged]