5 ms·

No, the Constitution is fine. We are failing to enforce the Constitution like we did in the past, and that is why America is falling apart.

jrflowers 9mo ago
I love clarifications like this. It is like “The Constitution is fine; Nicolas Cage never stole it. That was just a film. In any case even if he had, it is is documented that he eventually returned it unharmed”
jleyank 9mo ago
Yup. There were supposed to be 3 separate, contentious arms of the government: executive, legislative and judicial. The problem, and I honestly can't see a solution to it, is that the same party/group controls all three and nobody's willing to buck the trend. The "guardrails" are there, it merely turns out they're only weakly enforced.
- whynotminot 9mo ago
  I don’t know what the solution is, because a fourth branch of government also could be problematic. But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive.
  - efitz 9mo ago
    The justice department IS part of the executive branch; it’s a department headed by a cabinet secretary.
    - whynotminot 9mo ago
      Yes? That’s what I said.
  - andsoitis 9mo ago
    > But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive. The alternatives are probably worse. Every alternative trades political accountability for independence or vice versa. The alternatives are: An Independent Prosecutorial Branch (a “fourth branch”), OR Prosecutors as Part of the Judicial Branch, OR Congress-Controlled Prosecution, OR Fully Decentralized / Elected Federal Prosecutors. The US uses a hybrid model of executive control with strong counterweights rather than full independence. This model persists because it maintains democratic accountability, preserves adversarial courts, and allows checks without creating an unaccountable power center.
  - tosapple 9mo ago
    How is that all not part of the judicial branch, e.g. the "courts" ?
    - adrian_b 9mo ago
      There are many countries where prosecutors belong to the judicial branch, together with judges. In USA however, they belong to the Department of Justice, which is a part of the government.
- efitz 9mo ago
  What do you mean no one is willing to buck the trend? It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. On the other hand we have federal district court judges in podunk deciding that they have the unilateral ability to stop the president from exercising executive authority. It wouldn’t be so comical if they didn’t ultimately lose in most cases; our judges are the real Constitutional crisis right now. I have not seen the Trump administration fail to obey a single court order; I just don’t see Trump as a crisis. His policies, you could make a good case. His rhetoric, yes. His official acts, not so much.
  - ipython 9mo ago
    > It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. Unfortunately the state party operatives have started gerrymandering efforts to make this even more difficult. Trump has absolutely failed to comply with several court orders. The ones I’m aware of relate to Kilmar Garcia’s removal to CECOT.
    - efitz 9mo ago
      Where is Garcia now? In the US. Who brought him back? Trump
      - ipython 9mo ago
        So it’s ok he was sent to CECOT in violation of an order not to in the first place? The original question was whether Trump ignored court orders. Id say that removing someone against a court order to a third country is a pretty big issue. Even if a year later after a huge public pressure campaign he is temporarily back in the states. See https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryland-man-awaiting-a-decision-on-whether-he-can-stay-in-the-us/ https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryla...
        mothballed 9mo ago
        He wasn't removed to a third country. He was removed to his home country, illegally, as he had a court order for deportation but per his own request he left open only deportation to a third country because he was granted his petition to bar deportation to El Salvador after his asylum claim failed. Had he had been shoved out of a C-130 and parachuted into South Sudan, we'd never even be hearing of the guy because that would have been allowed and been in compliance with the deportation order as well as the order blocking deportation to the one country they deported him to.
- sheikhnbake 9mo ago
  The trend has been bucked by the fascists currently in power.
- anon291 9mo ago
  Well... That's only part of the problem. The real problem is that Congress delegated all its responsibility to the executive and judicial branches. To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy. To the judiciary it handed the power of checking the president. Now Congress does nothing as evidenced by how little actual legislation they've passed while Trump has just done everything via executive order. But this entire system developed while one party held all three branches but also while the branches were held by different parties. Since the house is up for election every two years, they have every incentive to delegate so they can wash their hands free of any decision.
  - f30e3dfed1c9 9mo ago
    "To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy." The War Powers Resolution of 1973, aka War Powers Act, does not give the executive power to declare war. On the contrary, it was intended to limit the executive's ability to engage in armed conflict. It says so right at the top: 50 U.S. Code § 1541 - Purpose and policy It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. One could argue that it hasn't worked all that well, but it is, for example, why George W. Bush got Congress to pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 before invading Iraq. Also, "[t]hen it created a new branch, the federal reserve" is a sort of unusual way to describe something that happened 60 years earlier.
    - anon291 9mo ago
      Distinction without a difference on the war powers act
- SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago
  Nobody wants to say it. Yes, the original dream of the U.S. is very clearly a failed experiment with both the legislative and judicial branches essentially extensions of the executive branch. The checks and balances that used to exist have almost completely disappeared. Whatever’s left of those branches are essentially extra entry points for lobbyists and billionaires to fully drive the knife deeper. It wasn’t actually designed that way but it has slowly manipulated and shaped into that way over a hundred years of stacked up law bloat built with the sole intention to make challenging it impossible for anyone who’s not crazy wealthy.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    Well yes. It's easy to manipulate when you freeze the House for 100 years. That's the biggest reason we keep swinging so much. The House became a mini-senate, and the Senate structure is already something under contention (designed from the beginning to compromise with smaller population states). Now we have a Senate that can change every 2 years. 2 years is simply a bad golf swing for billionaires when they "lose". 2 years of suffering feels eternal for the working class The Legislature has the most power and the House freeze made it easy to co-opt. you make the house compliant or essentially useless, and you can't impeach anything in the executive nor judicial branches. Freeze the house and you can't really start any legislature to have laws catch up with rampant greed. Or make it easier to lobby into more greed. We desperately need to expand the house again. I remember saying we should have over 1000 reps with current growth. Maybe starting at 700-800 would be a good start.
    - specialist 9mo ago
      Yes and: The US House campaigns have steadily became more nationalized. Your proposal would reverse that. I believe, but cannot prove, localism would lead to parliamentary style coalitions (caucus).
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  well, it might be bucked. The problem is you can tear down a lot more in 2 years of reckless, lawless land than you can build in 20 years of gridlock. Even 5 years of unanimous cooperation may not be enough at this point to rebuild what's happened, and we're halfway to midterms. Legistlative will bend and sway as it's been doing for 30 years now. the judicial is the much more concerning branch. EVen if Trump was ousted tomorrow, we're still stuck with a conservative majority for a good 20 years or so without major intervention. The long shot is that Thomas and Alito get convicted. But we'd need huge momentum for that to gain ground, and even then Breyer may pass sooner or later. Adding to the courts would help, but not solve the underlying issue.
wvenable 9mo ago
Failing to enforce the Constitution is part of the problem. The Constitution gives very few options for recourse and was not designed for the situation where two of three branches of government willingly abdicate their own power. Even the government shutdown is an example of the failure of the US constitution. In most other countries in the world, the inability to pass a budget triggers an election.
- deleted 9mo ago
  [deleted]
- watwut 9mo ago
  They did NOT abdicated the power. They, meaning their republican members, are actively using power to achieve or defend republican ideological goals. Democrats are not fighting as they should, they tend to be centrists seeking to accomodate. But, there was no abdication. There is an intentional cooperation.
  - johnnyanmac 9mo ago
    I'd say choosing to let the executive execute reckless tarriff policies counts as "abdicating power". If they really believed in their power, Trump would just need to throw tarriff policies at congress and they can approve it with their majority house and senate votes. Likewise, the Supreme Court putting an immunity clause right before Biden left feels like abdication. Again, if what Trump was doing was just, it'd be easy to interpret it in his favor, 6-3. But instead they gave blanket immunity. It can be intentional cooperation and still be abdicating.
  - wvenable 9mo ago
    It might be cooperation through abdication, but it's still abdication. They are choosing to allow the executive to do things that would be under their control.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  >In most other countries in the world, the inability to pass a budget triggers an election. That's actually a wonderful idea. Our legistlature definitely needs more skin in the game, so I was privy to the idea that their salaries are also frozen during a shutdown (like 90% of federal workers). But having them ousted from their seats can be interesting. Of course, the obvious counter argument is exploitation. Could a bitter party band together and try to force early re-elections if they feel they have the upper hand?
unethical_ban 9mo ago
The Constitution is not fine. You are correct that it is not being enforced properly, and IMO we have a coup being staged in real time. We should have rolling term limits for SCOTUS. We should have ranked-choice/multiple-choice mechanisms for all elections to facilitate a true multiparty system. We should further regulate money and transparency in spending vis-a-vis political advertising. We should ban gerrymandering. The Senate should be weakened or entirely removed. I am aware that is theoretically the only thing that is not amendable, but it's a flaw that we have it in any case. The Electoral College should be discarded. And clearly, impeachment should be easier than it is - or else maybe we just have the dictatorship we deserve? Thanks, GOP. That's just off the top of my head.
- anon291 9mo ago
  There is no dictator ship though. These takes are insane. Hate trump as much as you want (I certainly dislike him).... He's the democratically elected president of the US
  - nmfisher 9mo ago
    If the reports are true, the proceeds from selling Venezuelan oil are going into his own Qatari bank account. That's third-world tinpot dictatorship right there.
  - gmd63 9mo ago
    Those takes are informed and level headed. We have a wildly unqualified Secretary of Defense who was appointed only because he advocated in his book "American Crusade" for a crusade against the "American Left". A Project 2025 leader Kevin Roberts described us as in the middle of a second American Revolution that will remain bloodless if the left allows it. And he said that before the election. The DOGE project was a wildly unconstitutional overreach of the executive branch, shutting down or severely crippling agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without the approval of Congress. Republicans are letting Trump act like a dictator to accomplish things they want outside of the guardrails of our democracy. There are plenty more examples out there if you choose to pay attention.
  - 9mo ago
coffeemug 9mo ago
What is the evidence that America is falling apart? From all my reading of American history, America has _always_ been this way. With a wide lens it appears as healthy as it's ever been. This is a genuine question-- I've read a lot of American history, but I'm still a dilettante. It's extremely difficult to tell if there are genuinely new conditions, or if we're engaging in a vigorous political process as we always did.
- pdpi 9mo ago
  We live in a world where the sitting president calls January 6 a day of love, and has pardoned the rioters, and then says that people protesting ICE are "domestic terrorists". We live in a world where federal prosecutors are choosing to quit rather than following his orders. Remember John McCain defending Obama[0]? Do you genuinely believe that the people heading the Republican Party today would ever do that? Contrast McCain's humility and grace in his concession speech[1] with Trump's constant refusal to accept that he lost 2020, and his insistence on exacting revenge on the people who "wronged" him. No, this is not a "vigorous political process" in action. It's something else entirely. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Mba8ncBso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Mba8ncBso
  - coffeemug 9mo ago
    In the 1800 election republicans thought the federalists will turn America into a tyrannical monarchy, and the federalists thought the republicans will plunge America into mob rule like the French Revolution. They would have never defended each other. Things look bad if you have a twenty year time horizon, but they look pretty normal if you zoom out to encompass all of American history. Re Trump exacting revenge on political opponents, that conduct has endless precedent in American history. (Refusing to concede the election does not; but he was forced out of office nonetheless, which I read as a sign the republic is healthy.) EDIT: I just remembered about the Aaron Burr conspiracy. Aaron Burr lost the 1800 election to Jefferson by one elector (after over a month of gridlock). He then tried to raise a private army to either march on Washington, or to form his own country and secede from the union. In 1805 Jefferson ordered his arrest and Burr was tried for treason (and acquitted!)
NoGravitas 9mo ago
The Constitution provides no mechanism for its own enforcement other than impeachment (not just of the executive, but of the top officials of other branches as well), but the party system makes that essentially impossible today. It might become just possible if the Senate were eliminated, but FPTP and gerrymandering would still present problems.

jrflowers 9mo ago

I love clarifications like this. It is like “The Constitution is fine; Nicolas Cage never stole it. That was just a film. In any case even if he had, it is is documented that he eventually returned it unharmed”

jleyank 9mo ago

Yup. There were supposed to be 3 separate, contentious arms of the government: executive, legislative and judicial. The problem, and I honestly can't see a solution to it, is that the same party/group controls all three and nobody's willing to buck the trend. The "guardrails" are there, it merely turns out they're only weakly enforced.

whynotminot 9mo ago
I don’t know what the solution is, because a fourth branch of government also could be problematic. But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive.
- efitz 9mo ago
  The justice department IS part of the executive branch; it’s a department headed by a cabinet secretary.
  - whynotminot 9mo ago
    Yes? That’s what I said.
- andsoitis 9mo ago
  > But it’s becoming a very obvious problem that the justice department is not separate from the executive. The alternatives are probably worse. Every alternative trades political accountability for independence or vice versa. The alternatives are: An Independent Prosecutorial Branch (a “fourth branch”), OR Prosecutors as Part of the Judicial Branch, OR Congress-Controlled Prosecution, OR Fully Decentralized / Elected Federal Prosecutors. The US uses a hybrid model of executive control with strong counterweights rather than full independence. This model persists because it maintains democratic accountability, preserves adversarial courts, and allows checks without creating an unaccountable power center.
- tosapple 9mo ago
  How is that all not part of the judicial branch, e.g. the "courts" ?
  - adrian_b 9mo ago
    There are many countries where prosecutors belong to the judicial branch, together with judges. In USA however, they belong to the Department of Justice, which is a part of the government.
efitz 9mo ago
What do you mean no one is willing to buck the trend? It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. On the other hand we have federal district court judges in podunk deciding that they have the unilateral ability to stop the president from exercising executive authority. It wouldn’t be so comical if they didn’t ultimately lose in most cases; our judges are the real Constitutional crisis right now. I have not seen the Trump administration fail to obey a single court order; I just don’t see Trump as a crisis. His policies, you could make a good case. His rhetoric, yes. His official acts, not so much.
- ipython 9mo ago
  > It’s almost a certainty that Republicans will lose the house this year and maybe the senate. Unfortunately the state party operatives have started gerrymandering efforts to make this even more difficult. Trump has absolutely failed to comply with several court orders. The ones I’m aware of relate to Kilmar Garcia’s removal to CECOT.
  - efitz 9mo ago
    Where is Garcia now? In the US. Who brought him back? Trump
    - ipython 9mo ago
      So it’s ok he was sent to CECOT in violation of an order not to in the first place? The original question was whether Trump ignored court orders. Id say that removing someone against a court order to a third country is a pretty big issue. Even if a year later after a huge public pressure campaign he is temporarily back in the states. See https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryland-man-awaiting-a-decision-on-whether-he-can-stay-in-the-us/ https://marylandmatters.org/2026/01/16/whats-next-for-maryla...
      - mothballed 9mo ago
        He wasn't removed to a third country. He was removed to his home country, illegally, as he had a court order for deportation but per his own request he left open only deportation to a third country because he was granted his petition to bar deportation to El Salvador after his asylum claim failed. Had he had been shoved out of a C-130 and parachuted into South Sudan, we'd never even be hearing of the guy because that would have been allowed and been in compliance with the deportation order as well as the order blocking deportation to the one country they deported him to.
sheikhnbake 9mo ago
The trend has been bucked by the fascists currently in power.
anon291 9mo ago
Well... That's only part of the problem. The real problem is that Congress delegated all its responsibility to the executive and judicial branches. To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy. To the judiciary it handed the power of checking the president. Now Congress does nothing as evidenced by how little actual legislation they've passed while Trump has just done everything via executive order. But this entire system developed while one party held all three branches but also while the branches were held by different parties. Since the house is up for election every two years, they have every incentive to delegate so they can wash their hands free of any decision.
- f30e3dfed1c9 9mo ago
  "To the executive branch it gave the power to declare war (war power act), and to make new law (administrative law). Then it created a new branch, the federal reserve, to make monetary policy." The War Powers Resolution of 1973, aka War Powers Act, does not give the executive power to declare war. On the contrary, it was intended to limit the executive's ability to engage in armed conflict. It says so right at the top: 50 U.S. Code § 1541 - Purpose and policy It is the purpose of this chapter to fulfill the intent of the framers of the Constitution of the United States and insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, and to the continued use of such forces in hostilities or in such situations. One could argue that it hasn't worked all that well, but it is, for example, why George W. Bush got Congress to pass the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 before invading Iraq. Also, "[t]hen it created a new branch, the federal reserve" is a sort of unusual way to describe something that happened 60 years earlier.
  - anon291 9mo ago
    Distinction without a difference on the war powers act
SlightlyLeftPad 9mo ago
Nobody wants to say it. Yes, the original dream of the U.S. is very clearly a failed experiment with both the legislative and judicial branches essentially extensions of the executive branch. The checks and balances that used to exist have almost completely disappeared. Whatever’s left of those branches are essentially extra entry points for lobbyists and billionaires to fully drive the knife deeper. It wasn’t actually designed that way but it has slowly manipulated and shaped into that way over a hundred years of stacked up law bloat built with the sole intention to make challenging it impossible for anyone who’s not crazy wealthy.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  Well yes. It's easy to manipulate when you freeze the House for 100 years. That's the biggest reason we keep swinging so much. The House became a mini-senate, and the Senate structure is already something under contention (designed from the beginning to compromise with smaller population states). Now we have a Senate that can change every 2 years. 2 years is simply a bad golf swing for billionaires when they "lose". 2 years of suffering feels eternal for the working class The Legislature has the most power and the House freeze made it easy to co-opt. you make the house compliant or essentially useless, and you can't impeach anything in the executive nor judicial branches. Freeze the house and you can't really start any legislature to have laws catch up with rampant greed. Or make it easier to lobby into more greed. We desperately need to expand the house again. I remember saying we should have over 1000 reps with current growth. Maybe starting at 700-800 would be a good start.
  - specialist 9mo ago
    Yes and: The US House campaigns have steadily became more nationalized. Your proposal would reverse that. I believe, but cannot prove, localism would lead to parliamentary style coalitions (caucus).
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
well, it might be bucked. The problem is you can tear down a lot more in 2 years of reckless, lawless land than you can build in 20 years of gridlock. Even 5 years of unanimous cooperation may not be enough at this point to rebuild what's happened, and we're halfway to midterms. Legistlative will bend and sway as it's been doing for 30 years now. the judicial is the much more concerning branch. EVen if Trump was ousted tomorrow, we're still stuck with a conservative majority for a good 20 years or so without major intervention. The long shot is that Thomas and Alito get convicted. But we'd need huge momentum for that to gain ground, and even then Breyer may pass sooner or later. Adding to the courts would help, but not solve the underlying issue.

wvenable 9mo ago

Failing to enforce the Constitution is part of the problem. The Constitution gives very few options for recourse and was not designed for the situation where two of three branches of government willingly abdicate their own power. Even the government shutdown is an example of the failure of the US constitution. In most other countries in the world, the inability to pass a budget triggers an election.

deleted 9mo ago
[deleted]
watwut 9mo ago
They did NOT abdicated the power. They, meaning their republican members, are actively using power to achieve or defend republican ideological goals. Democrats are not fighting as they should, they tend to be centrists seeking to accomodate. But, there was no abdication. There is an intentional cooperation.
- johnnyanmac 9mo ago
  I'd say choosing to let the executive execute reckless tarriff policies counts as "abdicating power". If they really believed in their power, Trump would just need to throw tarriff policies at congress and they can approve it with their majority house and senate votes. Likewise, the Supreme Court putting an immunity clause right before Biden left feels like abdication. Again, if what Trump was doing was just, it'd be easy to interpret it in his favor, 6-3. But instead they gave blanket immunity. It can be intentional cooperation and still be abdicating.
- wvenable 9mo ago
  It might be cooperation through abdication, but it's still abdication. They are choosing to allow the executive to do things that would be under their control.
johnnyanmac 9mo ago
>In most other countries in the world, the inability to pass a budget triggers an election. That's actually a wonderful idea. Our legistlature definitely needs more skin in the game, so I was privy to the idea that their salaries are also frozen during a shutdown (like 90% of federal workers). But having them ousted from their seats can be interesting. Of course, the obvious counter argument is exploitation. Could a bitter party band together and try to force early re-elections if they feel they have the upper hand?

unethical_ban 9mo ago

The Constitution is not fine. You are correct that it is not being enforced properly, and IMO we have a coup being staged in real time. We should have rolling term limits for SCOTUS. We should have ranked-choice/multiple-choice mechanisms for all elections to facilitate a true multiparty system. We should further regulate money and transparency in spending vis-a-vis political advertising. We should ban gerrymandering. The Senate should be weakened or entirely removed. I am aware that is theoretically the only thing that is not amendable, but it's a flaw that we have it in any case. The Electoral College should be discarded. And clearly, impeachment should be easier than it is - or else maybe we just have the dictatorship we deserve? Thanks, GOP. That's just off the top of my head.

anon291 9mo ago
There is no dictator ship though. These takes are insane. Hate trump as much as you want (I certainly dislike him).... He's the democratically elected president of the US
- nmfisher 9mo ago
  If the reports are true, the proceeds from selling Venezuelan oil are going into his own Qatari bank account. That's third-world tinpot dictatorship right there.
- gmd63 9mo ago
  Those takes are informed and level headed. We have a wildly unqualified Secretary of Defense who was appointed only because he advocated in his book "American Crusade" for a crusade against the "American Left". A Project 2025 leader Kevin Roberts described us as in the middle of a second American Revolution that will remain bloodless if the left allows it. And he said that before the election. The DOGE project was a wildly unconstitutional overreach of the executive branch, shutting down or severely crippling agencies like the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau without the approval of Congress. Republicans are letting Trump act like a dictator to accomplish things they want outside of the guardrails of our democracy. There are plenty more examples out there if you choose to pay attention.
- 9mo ago

coffeemug 9mo ago

What is the evidence that America is falling apart? From all my reading of American history, America has _always_ been this way. With a wide lens it appears as healthy as it's ever been. This is a genuine question-- I've read a lot of American history, but I'm still a dilettante. It's extremely difficult to tell if there are genuinely new conditions, or if we're engaging in a vigorous political process as we always did.

pdpi 9mo ago
We live in a world where the sitting president calls January 6 a day of love, and has pardoned the rioters, and then says that people protesting ICE are "domestic terrorists". We live in a world where federal prosecutors are choosing to quit rather than following his orders. Remember John McCain defending Obama[0]? Do you genuinely believe that the people heading the Republican Party today would ever do that? Contrast McCain's humility and grace in his concession speech[1] with Trump's constant refusal to accept that he lost 2020, and his insistence on exacting revenge on the people who "wronged" him. No, this is not a "vigorous political process" in action. It's something else entirely. 0. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JIjenjANqAk 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Mba8ncBso https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5Mba8ncBso
- coffeemug 9mo ago
  In the 1800 election republicans thought the federalists will turn America into a tyrannical monarchy, and the federalists thought the republicans will plunge America into mob rule like the French Revolution. They would have never defended each other. Things look bad if you have a twenty year time horizon, but they look pretty normal if you zoom out to encompass all of American history. Re Trump exacting revenge on political opponents, that conduct has endless precedent in American history. (Refusing to concede the election does not; but he was forced out of office nonetheless, which I read as a sign the republic is healthy.) EDIT: I just remembered about the Aaron Burr conspiracy. Aaron Burr lost the 1800 election to Jefferson by one elector (after over a month of gridlock). He then tried to raise a private army to either march on Washington, or to form his own country and secede from the union. In 1805 Jefferson ordered his arrest and Burr was tried for treason (and acquitted!)

NoGravitas 9mo ago

The Constitution provides no mechanism for its own enforcement other than impeachment (not just of the executive, but of the top officials of other branches as well), but the party system makes that essentially impossible today. It might become just possible if the Senate were eliminated, but FPTP and gerrymandering would still present problems.