I think that the problem is that Hampshire is taking one sentence out of context.
Trump stated that the constitution CAN be overturned. Out of context, that means exactly what it says. It is not the same as a demand that the constitution SHOULD BE overturned.
The context is all important. For two years Trump has been demanding that the election be overturned. In the latest message, Trump once again made the same demand. That part, on its own, IS a call for the termination of the Constitution. Just like all the others. He then followed with a claim that the Constitution can be overturned. That shows that he KNOWS his demands are unconstitutional.
It’s interesting that the oath part of Oathkeepers is their oath to defend the Constitution.
Not that they’re going to be logically consistent or anything and drop their support of Trump. Naked cognitive dissonance is pretty much the norm for righties these days.
Surely it is true that the constitution can always be overturned. It helps if you have your friend draft a new one ready to unleash, and the support of the Army. Worked for Charles de Gaulle.
Okay, that’s a plausible interpretation. But it still calls for upending the Constitution. The most defendable interpretation is that which you allude to in the previous paragraph - that the Democrats have already made a mockery of the Constitution by subverting the electoral process, cheating to prevent Donald J. Trump from returning to his rightful place as President of the United States of America. But even this calls for terminating the Constitution.
So I submit that any quibbles about “interpretation” are just that - quibbles. Trump really is calling for the termination of the Constitution. At best, he’s arguing that it’s justified because of the magnitude of Democratic election fraud, although I think that’s attributing too much coherence to his statement. More plausibly, he’s just saying that he’s more important than the Constitution, which aligns nicely with what we know about the magnitude of his narcissism.
Oh, man, all this time I’d been conflating the Oathkeepers with the Promisekeepers and wondering how in hell they morphed from a tradtional marriage supporting group of dads to out-and-out secessionist Nazi scumbags.
In other words, that they’re in favor of “upending” the Constitution?
You might be right that they manage to find a distinction there; but again it’s not a distinction with any practical effect to it. I wouldn’t be in the least surprised if some of Trump’s base is perfectly willing to ditch the Constitution if they think that doing so will make Trump POTUS; but that would mean that they’d be in agreement with terminating the Constitution, not that it isn’t what that means.
Rather than Lucy/Charlie Brown and the football, my mind keeps going back to this “Family Guy” bit. It really pushed the envelope but it’s disturbingly Trump-ish in this context (about 0:29s. You know you’ve got twenty-nine seconds):
And aren’t the characters just a tad orange-tinted? Hmm.
All I know is that right wingers accused the left of having “Trump Derangement Syndrome” because they were sore about HRC losing in 2016, but not a peep about Trump having “Biden Derangement Syndrome” after 2 years of complaining on social media and at his rallies about how “unfairly” he was treated. If HRC had complained that often and for that long about her loss, the right wing would have crowed about how she had gone around the bend.
As far as the specific subject of this thread, calling for changing or removing “some of” the rules in the Constitution is pretty much calling for the abolishment of the Constitution, in my mind. Installing someone as president who did not win by the rules of the Constitution would BE the abolishment of the Constitution, in my mind. Even calling for a new election, which is not allowed for in the Constitution, would be the abolishment of it.
He should thank god for the constitution. Any other country he would have been put up against the wall by now. Or at least put behind bars. What a weird timeline to live in. Marty fucked it all up.
And in his case, is not defending the Constitution not perjury? A remember a ceremony with the highest number of attendees ever where he swore to uphold and protect it, or something like that. Is perjury not a crime in the USA?
Good point. There might be a position that carried the same name, though.
Look at all those “Democratic Republics” out there. North Korea, for example.
There is a constitutional technique (other than by winning the next election) by which Donald Trump could be declared POTUS.
That technique would be writing, and getting approved by either of the techniques described in the Constitution, an amendment to the Constitution which said something like ‘notwithstanding anything else in this document, Donald Trump shall immediately upon the approval of this amendment be declared POTUS and assume the full rights and [hah] responsibilities of that office’ either “for x years” or “for the duration of his natural life”.
Getting such an amendment approved, however, would be a bit tricky.
That’s for sure. But he’s no more likely to do so than he is likely to be thankful for having had the chance to pay taxes to build and maintain the roads and airports he assumes he’s got the right to travel via.
Seditious conspiracy. Might be hard to prove to the standards of a court. Or maybe not. I’d really like to find out.
(Also most likely tax evasion and various sorts of financial fraud.)
