bold statement for a guy whose been through his fair share of assassination attempts
38CFRM21 on
Noted my guy.
Hes begging for a reason to implement martial law, isn’t he.
jauznevimcosimamdat on
“By the Grace of God, I am the US President” – Trump most likely thinking this every day
Nastrod on
The playbook continues: moving fully into “ignore the courts”
toggaf69 on
It’s so fucked that I’m actually hoping for a military junta to stop this at some point
DurangoGango on
Hail Caesar, restorer of the Republic.
alexd9229 on
Oh good, definitely seems like this is headed to a positive place.
quillua0 on
Wow that is a ridiculously bizarre statement coming out of him
ONETRILLIONAMERICANS on
TLDR: Trump’s sending a message to SCOTUS that they’ll cause a constitutional crisis if they cross him. He’s betting that they’ll give him what he wants if that’s the price of keeping the peace. [For some context for this](https://archive.is/jGsN3):
> While acknowledging that in part they are speculating, Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard who served in the George W. Bush administration, and Bob Bauer, who served in the Obama administration and now teaches at N.Y.U., believe that the trio of Trump, Musk and Vought have a radical plan based in large part on the Trump administration’s belief that it is battling an enemy within.
> In their essay [“The Trump Executive Orders as ‘Radical Constitutionalism,’”](https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-trump-executive-orders-as-radical-constitutionalism/) Goldsmith and Bauer ask, “Why do so many of President Trump’s multitudinous executive orders fly in the face of extant legal principles? Are they the result of incompetence?”
> Goldsmith and Bauer suggest “a third possibility: the administration doesn’t care about compliance with current law, might not care about what the Supreme Court thinks either, and is seeking to effectuate radical constitutional change.”
> What is this change?
> The constitutionally and lawfully questionable executive orders Trump has issued, Goldsmith and Bauer write, “seem more like pieces of a program, in the form of law defiance, for a mini-constitutional convention to ‘amend’ Article II (defining the scope and limits of presidential power) across a broad front.”
> The goal of this program, they argue, is to impose on the body politic Vought’s “radical constitutionalism,” a movement in which “the right needs to throw off the precedents and legal paradigms that have wrongly developed over the last two hundred years.”
> **Vought, according to Goldsmith and Bauer, “strongly implied that an element of radical constitutionalism is to instill fear in the Supreme Court that the presidency is prepared to resort to outright defiance of its decisions.”**
Enough_Astronautaway on
Who is it who writes his X posts? I presume Truth Social is him 100% but this is a refined fascist statement with correct grammar and no screaming.
More Adolf Eichmann than Pol Pot.
OldDudeOpinion on
Does that make it OK to take out potential threats? I can think of a few ways to save the country. If it doesn’t violate any laws….
Inner_Singer_592 on
That’s a cute way of saying he’s above the law
Naudious on
Has anyone considered maybe dictatorship is based if the dictator agrees with me?
14 Comments
Sounds like something a Tyrant would say
bold statement for a guy whose been through his fair share of assassination attempts
Noted my guy.
Hes begging for a reason to implement martial law, isn’t he.
“By the Grace of God, I am the US President” – Trump most likely thinking this every day
The playbook continues: moving fully into “ignore the courts”
It’s so fucked that I’m actually hoping for a military junta to stop this at some point
Hail Caesar, restorer of the Republic.
Oh good, definitely seems like this is headed to a positive place.
Wow that is a ridiculously bizarre statement coming out of him
TLDR: Trump’s sending a message to SCOTUS that they’ll cause a constitutional crisis if they cross him. He’s betting that they’ll give him what he wants if that’s the price of keeping the peace. [For some context for this](https://archive.is/jGsN3):
> While acknowledging that in part they are speculating, Jack Goldsmith, a law professor at Harvard who served in the George W. Bush administration, and Bob Bauer, who served in the Obama administration and now teaches at N.Y.U., believe that the trio of Trump, Musk and Vought have a radical plan based in large part on the Trump administration’s belief that it is battling an enemy within.
> In their essay [“The Trump Executive Orders as ‘Radical Constitutionalism,’”](https://www.aei.org/op-eds/the-trump-executive-orders-as-radical-constitutionalism/) Goldsmith and Bauer ask, “Why do so many of President Trump’s multitudinous executive orders fly in the face of extant legal principles? Are they the result of incompetence?”
> Goldsmith and Bauer suggest “a third possibility: the administration doesn’t care about compliance with current law, might not care about what the Supreme Court thinks either, and is seeking to effectuate radical constitutional change.”
> What is this change?
> The constitutionally and lawfully questionable executive orders Trump has issued, Goldsmith and Bauer write, “seem more like pieces of a program, in the form of law defiance, for a mini-constitutional convention to ‘amend’ Article II (defining the scope and limits of presidential power) across a broad front.”
> The goal of this program, they argue, is to impose on the body politic Vought’s “radical constitutionalism,” a movement in which “the right needs to throw off the precedents and legal paradigms that have wrongly developed over the last two hundred years.”
> **Vought, according to Goldsmith and Bauer, “strongly implied that an element of radical constitutionalism is to instill fear in the Supreme Court that the presidency is prepared to resort to outright defiance of its decisions.”**
Who is it who writes his X posts? I presume Truth Social is him 100% but this is a refined fascist statement with correct grammar and no screaming.
More Adolf Eichmann than Pol Pot.
Does that make it OK to take out potential threats? I can think of a few ways to save the country. If it doesn’t violate any laws….
That’s a cute way of saying he’s above the law
Has anyone considered maybe dictatorship is based if the dictator agrees with me?