> As long as elections are still a thing over there, even if Trump gets a third term
I think you misunderstand. The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term. The only way he remains in power after his second term is if the Constitution is abolished, in which case "continuing to wait it out" is futile. It would be equivalent to this:
> Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)
>> The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term.
The Constitution says "No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice". It doesn't say no person shall serve as President more than twice.
Gerald Ford was never elected to the office of the President. He was never even elected to the office of Vice President. Yet he served as President.
One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.
I'm sure clever people can think of other scenarios.
The 12th amendment says "no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States". But what that means, or indeed any part of the constitution means, is determined by the Supreme Count of the day.
> One scenario: Trump runs as a Vice President on a ticket with someone else as President. 5 minutes after being inaugurated, the President resigns, making Trump President for a third term.
You can conceive of imaginary scenarios, but that's not going to happen. Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign. If that's the scenario you're afraid of, it's just silly.
I would note that Republican Senators are reluctant even to bypass the current Democratic filibuster shutting down the government. As much as Republican politicians are deferential to Trump, they still have their own political ambitions. Some of them are biding their time in the hope that they themselves can become the next President.
>"Nobody who wins the Presidency is going to resign"
I dunno, man. People are already putting their name next to a "NAY" vote for the President, specifically when it comes to releasing files regarding the most prolific child sex trafficker of our time; who likely had such connections to the President.
Being masochistic enough for someone to do that, and to resign as president, are less steps away than you think.
> The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution.
I have no faith Trump gives a shit about the constitution. He and his goons can amend and screw around till they find something that gives them what they want. So long as there's a somewhat legitimate election that says Trump's president, the fire burning under Europe's bottom isn't burning hot enough for them to move. Unless there's literally no election, not even the pretence of democracy, I can't imagine anyone doing anything much different from what they're doing now. If they were going to, they'd have already done it.
But if not one thing is yielded to him, if without any violence he is simply not obeyed, he becomes naked and undone and nothing, just as when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.
If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term, or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time, regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough. I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
> If they can't amend, they can bypass. Or ignore.
Yes, that was my point! Again, the only path to remaining in power is to completely bypass or ignore the Consitution. There is no legal means, not even nominally.
> If people go out to vote for Donald Trump, and he wins the election for a third term
This is explicitly, clearly unconstitutional.
> or someone just says the right combination of words that wills him into being president for a third time
This is just hand-waving.
> regardless of the constitution, that'll be legitimate enough.
How will it be legitimate at all?
> I have very little faith in both the US and Europe.
You also appear to have very little knowledge of the US.
What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional, and the bench is very stacked. He's already above the law.
My point isn't really about the US. My point is that Europe will do naught more than what they're doing now unless the US democracy compleatly collapses. Even if the elections are made and choose a candidate that can't legally be elected, him being elected still has a shred of democracy that means it isn't totally gone, and thus probably not gone enough for Europe to actually wake up. It won't be a free and fair election if that's the way things go, but it will be an election, and I believe that will be enough.
> What's constitutional is what 5 out 9 people believe to be constitutional
This is not entirely accurate. If 5 Supreme Court justices declared that Trump is king, or that Christianity is the official religion of the United States, that doesn't make it Constutional. There are certain actions that are just obviously, blatantly unconstitutional, and everyone would recognize it, regardless of what the justices say. At a certain point, the justices themselves would be deemed to be ignoring the Constitution. The declaration may spawn another civil war, but we're not stupid enough to think, "Oh, hey, a king is actually Constitutional", and I doubt that Europeans are stupid enough to believe that either.
My brother in Christ, the point is that Trump v. United States itself was unconstitutional, and that Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution is at direct odds with a Supreme Court decision that the president has any form of immunity for any acts. See here:
"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: *but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.*" [emphasis mine]
Not to mention, the decision for ANY evidence that could discern an act from being official, unofficial or personal as being inadmissible in court, and that we simply have to take the Executive's word for whether an act was "official" or not, is such sovereign immunity that we might as well backtrack our historical roots.
Trump v. United States is a blank check for power overreach that we have yet to see the full amount of.
>"It doesn't magically give him a new election or a third term in office, which is what this discussion was about."
He gave an astute example of how constitutionality (which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure) doesn't matter when there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored - which is currently the easiest avenue for Trump to make any more unconstitutional advances (election suspension, third term, etc etc), and you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort.
That's where we are now - and I don't even have a dog in this fight; I joined merely because you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position, and I've only elucidated on his behalf how it is.
I don't like it and don't find it endearing or persuasuve.
> which is your crutch for "elections" and "third terms" being protected procedure
I'm not sure what you mean by "protected procedure". My point is just that it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Trump cannot run for a third term, and if the Supreme Court says he can, that would be equivalent to the Supreme Court saying that black is white or night is day, a bald-faced lie. I doubt they would, though.
If Trump attempted to remain in power, it would no doubt be via some kind of contrived emergency, martial law, state of "war", and not via running for election again, which nobody is going to accept, not even Republicans.
> there are currently unconstitutional Supreme Court rulings being honored
Yes, but that's true of many rulings, even before Trump took office.
> you acted - slightly arrogantly in fact - as if it wasn't a valid retort
A link is not a retort, valid or invalid.
> you falsely motioned that his link to Trump v. US wasn't complimentary to his position
No, I said that a link by itself is not an argument. The relevance and applicability of the link needs to be explained.
I think you misunderstand. The Presidency is term-limited by the Constitution. Trump cannot run for a third term. The only way he remains in power after his second term is if the Constitution is abolished, in which case "continuing to wait it out" is futile. It would be equivalent to this:
> Trump declares himself king (or whatever other fancy word)