The US constitution is in peril. Civil and human rights are being trampled upon. The economy is in disarray.
At this rate, we will not make it through the second 100 days.
Federal judges in more than 120 cases so far have sought to stop Trump – judges appointed by Republicans as well as Democrats, some appointed by Trump himself – but the regime is either ignoring or appealing their orders. It has even arrested a municipal judge in Milwaukee amid a case involving an undocumented defendant.
Recently, Judge J Harvie Wilkinson III of the court of appeals for the fourth circuit – an eminent conservative Reagan appointee who is revered by the Federalist Society – issued a scathing rebuke to the Trump regime. In response to its assertion that it can abduct residents of the US and put them into foreign prisons without due process, Wilkinson wrote:
If today the Executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the Executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? The threat, even if not the actuality, would always be present, and the Executive’s obligation to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed’ would lose its meaning.
I don’t see it explained what he means by “US won’t survive Trump’s next 100 days”?
The Trump administration has made a series of Executive Orders. State judges have deemed several of them unconstitutional and issued an injunction, legally pausing them until SCOTUS can rule them. In response, Trump has complained to SCOTUS that no single “activist judge” should be able to impede him like this. They will hear that case soon, and one of two things will happen:
-
SCOTUS rules in favor of the Executive branch, and judges can no longer block federal behavior, meaning the only way for unconstitutional actions taken by the federal govt to be heard by a court is for the affected individual to file a lawsuit in federal court.
-
SCOTUS rules in favor of the states, BUT trump legitimately believes he is allowed to commit crimes as president, so he’ll just continue ignoring everyone.
I think what he really means is that democracy in USA won’t survive.
That’s the same thing. No democratic republic, no constitution, no USA. Trump might continue using the name, he might even come up with a new constitution and say that it’s the same one with a few improvements, but the US as we knew it would be dead and gone.
That’s the same thing.
No.
Did for instance Hungary cease to exist when it became Communist?
Did it cease to exist again when it became democratic?
The answer to both is obviously no.
Same with USA, just because it becomes a totalitarian dictatorship is not the same as not surviving as a country.
When that happened to Germany it didn’t mean Germany ceased to exist as a country either.
For that you have to speculate that something more happens afterwards. Which isn’t mentioned in the article at all.
This isn’t going to be like Hungary or Germany, this is going to be like the USSR.
The entire concept of the US is heavily tied to its founding ideals of federalism, separation of powers, and rejection of a totalitarian monarchy. It’s why we have the name United States, and not a singular State of America. Versus something like Hungary which, from what I can find, is named for the native peoples of the area, didn’t have a written constitution for most of that time, and has gone through a handful of constitutions in recent history. It’s not an apt comparison.
Will the land of mass still exist there? Will there still be people there with some form of government? Yeah, obviously, we don’t disagree.
But would every single US citizen agree that, if we are no longer a democratic republic as determined by the founding constitution, then we are no longer the same country? Yes. There’s just not a world where US citizens say “yeah this is the opposite of what the founders were going for, but it’s still the same country”. The name United States wouldn’t even make sense anymore, because the states would no longer have autonomy.
If Trump established a dictatorship that wields the US military to oppress the will of the states, then for that duration it is no longer the United States, it’s whatever Trump calls it (he would probably call it the US, but it would be as accurate as North Korea calling itself a Democratic People’s Republic). If the states later overthrow that dictatorship and reinstate a form of rule that is based in the founding ideals, then the US would be refounded, and I could be convinced THAT is the same country re-established. But if the democracy is never re-established, and we stay under a form of totalitarian rule, then the US ceases to exist.
and not a singular State of America. Versus something like Hungary
True, but way more similar to Germany which also became authoritarian and abandoned German democratic values under Hitler.
Will the land of mass still exist there?
That’s not at all relevant, what’s relevant is if the federation will survive, if it does USA is technically intact, even if it breaks every traditional value of USA.
If Trump established a dictatorship that wields the US military to oppress the will of the states,
That’s a strange argument IMO, since this is the foundation of USA, and was the cause for the civil war. The power of the federal government precede the states.
Contrary to EU, where any nation can leave peacefully if they wish, which was demonstrated by UK leaving.
It seems like you don’t really accept what it means for a nation to “survive”. It definitely doesn’t means everything has to be well, and as it used to be.
