A different remedy than removal.

[Razgovory]

I honestly haven't watched too much of what Trumpworld has been saying, but I do know that Trump's defenders' argument is that Trump's behavior does not rise to level of impeachment and removal.  Okay, I can buy that, well sort of anyway, but what other remedy is there?  Have any of these people come up with a solution that would prevent Trump from inviting foreign aid in his election or otherwise corrupting the process?  Has anyone laid out a differently remedy to the problem of Trump refusing to allow Congress access to documents and witnesses that they are entitled to under the law?  I agree that impeachment is an extreme measure, though probably necessary here, but is there any other alternative?  Of course it would help if the President didn't keep saying he did nothing wrong, tell bald face lies about what is happening, and claim he has the power to do whatever he wants.

[The Brain]

I don't think Trump's defenders think there should be a remedy.

[The Minsky Moment]

IOkay, I can buy that, well sort of anyway, but what other remedy is there?

2020 election

Have any of these people come up with a solution that would prevent Trump from inviting foreign aid in his election or otherwise corrupting the process?

Not electing him in the first place.

Has anyone laid out a differently remedy to the problem of Trump refusing to allow Congress access to documents and witnesses that they are entitled to under the law?

Yes, serve a subpoena then move to compel compliance under pain of contempt.

[Razgovory]

I'm not sure if elections are a good way to deal with electoral fraud.

[Oexmelin]

As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot. The answer to everything now looks to be to elect a Republican king. Or else.

[Razgovory]

As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot. The answer to everything now looks to be to elect a Republican king. Or else.

Yeah, that's what provoked this.  The idea that there is no way to stop a President who abuses his power is, quite frankly, shocking.

[The Minsky Moment]

As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot. The answer to everything now looks to be to elect a Republican king. Or else.

Yeah, that's what provoked this.  The idea that there is no way to stop a President who abuses his power is, quite frankly, shocking.

That's what impeachment is for.  It's true it doesn't seem to work but recall the founders assumed that neither the President nor the Senate would be elected by the people.

[Oexmelin]

One of the things I find horribly fascinating through all of this, is the fetishistic nature of American's relationship with their Constitution. Clearly, the document has been a center of American political discussion for a long, long, time - in a way that I think we would be hard-pressed to find in any other country. And yet, it's not the actual Constitution that was being lauded and celebrated. It has been, and perhaps for a while, a vague token, a fetish called "the Constitution" that has no specific content, but is a hodgepodge of ideas about American greatness, mixed and mashed with a number of others (at times even including the Ten Commandments...). And now that we have politicians who seem, out of cynicism, or ignorance, willing to defend things that are so self-evidently inimical to the constitutional order of the US, we may yet find that a huge swath of the population is not equipped to withstand the right-wing propaganda machine.

[merithyn]

One of the things I find horribly fascinating through all of this, is the fetishistic nature of American's relationship with their Constitution. Clearly, the document has been a center of American political discussion for a long, long, time - in a way that I think we would be hard-pressed to find in any other country. And yet, it's not the actual Constitution that was being lauded and celebrated. It has been, and perhaps for a while, a vague token, a fetish called "the Constitution" that has no specific content, but is a hodgepodge of ideas about American greatness, mixed and mashed with a number of others (at times even including the Ten Commandments...). And now that we have politicians who seem, out of cynicism, or ignorance, willing to defend things that are so self-evidently inimical to the constitutional order of the US, we may yet find that a huge swath of the population is not equipped to withstand the right-wing propaganda machine.

It's the foundation of every law we have. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

[Oexmelin]

It's the foundation of every law we have. I'm not sure why this is surprising.

The surprise is not that a Constitution is important. The surprise comes from the fact that political discourse in the US made the Constitution a recurring theme, such a powerful rhetorical device, and yet, left people apparently quite indifferent/ignorant to its spirit. In most countries, people do not talk nearly as much about the Constitution as the US - unless there is a Constitutional crisis (see: France, 1945-1958; Canada 1982-2000).

Yet, despite such a centrality in American political discourse for so many years, despite people arguing about the Constitution constantly, the fact that many people in power feel confident in uttering something so profoundly inimical to the very nature of the American Constitution seems to indicate the document has mostly a rhetorical value, quite divorced from its actual content.

To put it simply, I have the vague feeling that, in political discourse, "America is Great Because the Constitution Protects Liberty" is the extent to which its value is understood - not much more.

EDIT: In France you have pretty much the same, albeit with the Declaration of the Rights of Man. It's a recurring slogan that has very little actual substance.

[crazy canuck]

Similar happened here in Canada.  Trudeau even mandated his minister act in accord with the Charter.  Which is even more curious in the Canadian context where the Charter expressly allows Parliament to opt out.
 

[Josquius]

Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this

[Valmy]

Definitely true that the American constitution worship is bizzare.
Especially so when you consider how much it has changed throughout history.
Yet today it is regarded as something set in stone and not to be touched, with even set (wrong) interpretations held as part of this

There is nothing else that unites this country politically besides the Constitution. It is what created the country, at least as it currently exists. Not "worshiping" it would be bizarre in the context of the history of this country. It is so central to our political identity. Also it sounds like you are agreeing with somebody, Oex said it was NOT surprising it is so central. It is that it is so central yet at the same time so unimportant...which is bizarre.

And I don't get how it is regarded as something that cannot be touched. It has within itself a process for amending it.

[The Minsky Moment]

The surprise is not that a Constitution is important. The surprise comes from the fact that political discourse in the US made the Constitution a recurring theme, such a powerful rhetorical device, and yet, left people apparently quite indifferent/ignorant to its spirit.

Oh that's an understatement. Most people, current chief executive included, don't have a clue of what's in there.

[The Minsky Moment]

As Dershowitz (and soon, most Republicans, I venture) now argues that abuse of power is not an impeachable offense, I guess all of this is moot.

Dershowitz taught criminal law, not constitutional law and certainly not separation of powers. His opinion counts . . . about as much as anyone else's.  Assuming your name doesn't end in von Bulow, not obvious why his opinion should carry any special authoritative weight.