I think the point is more “As if by magic, all of the institutional barriers we hear about any time something good is on the docket suddenly are non-issues as soon as we’re doing something unthinkably evil”. If you want to make good counter arguments you need to work off of a “steelman” position of your opposition, otherwise it comes off as bad faith.
He is the leader of the army. He can send the army to do as he wishes (for a set amount of time and then Congress can force him to withdraw and not provide funding as well. Which would likely result in an impeachment and removal if Congress didn’t support what he did) He is not the leader of legislation, so he cannot make legislation when he wishes.
I’m sure this will get downvoted but whatever it seems fun to ramble. The president is basically a glorified cop. He can tell all of his soldiers to do his bidding, but a cop cannot act outside of the law without getting enough people to cover for him. If he breaks the law the legislature (review board in that example) would vote to have him removed from his position.
A cop cannot make up laws. He can lie to someone and say something potentially unlawful is legal but all lawfulness would be reviewed and depicted by the judicial branch from laws that were already written and the situation “rectified” in some manner (whether a slap on the wrist or extreme). Usually in the presidents case, they throw out what he said, or they request Congress to discuss it, which could start the impeachment process.
He commands what may currently be the most powerful army in the world, be he can only play with his toys when mom and dad say it is okay, and he has to be in bed by 9:30 as it’s a school night.
That’s why it is so much of a danger when one party owns both parts of the Legislative branch, easily the most powerful branch (so long as the constitution holds). If dad says you can go to bed at 10, and mom says no, bedtime stays at 9:30. If the party owns both congress and the senate, them mom and dad can agree bed time is at 11, and you can eat cake all you want. If the courts say cake is illegal after 6:30, mom and dad agree to write a new rule that cake time goes to 11. As we want our spoiled child to be able to run rampant.
I think the point is more “As if by magic, all of the institutional barriers we hear about any time something good is on the docket suddenly are non-issues as soon as we’re doing something unthinkably evil”. If you want to make good counter arguments you need to work off of a “steelman” position of your opposition, otherwise it comes off as bad faith.
He is the leader of the army. He can send the army to do as he wishes (for a set amount of time and then Congress can force him to withdraw and not provide funding as well. Which would likely result in an impeachment and removal if Congress didn’t support what he did) He is not the leader of legislation, so he cannot make legislation when he wishes.
I’m sure this will get downvoted but whatever it seems fun to ramble. The president is basically a glorified cop. He can tell all of his soldiers to do his bidding, but a cop cannot act outside of the law without getting enough people to cover for him. If he breaks the law the legislature (review board in that example) would vote to have him removed from his position.
A cop cannot make up laws. He can lie to someone and say something potentially unlawful is legal but all lawfulness would be reviewed and depicted by the judicial branch from laws that were already written and the situation “rectified” in some manner (whether a slap on the wrist or extreme). Usually in the presidents case, they throw out what he said, or they request Congress to discuss it, which could start the impeachment process.
He commands what may currently be the most powerful army in the world, be he can only play with his toys when mom and dad say it is okay, and he has to be in bed by 9:30 as it’s a school night.
That’s why it is so much of a danger when one party owns both parts of the Legislative branch, easily the most powerful branch (so long as the constitution holds). If dad says you can go to bed at 10, and mom says no, bedtime stays at 9:30. If the party owns both congress and the senate, them mom and dad can agree bed time is at 11, and you can eat cake all you want. If the courts say cake is illegal after 6:30, mom and dad agree to write a new rule that cake time goes to 11. As we want our spoiled child to be able to run rampant.