Yes, I understand that the 2nd amendment alone can’t stop a dictator if they have the army on their side… even though that was at least partly the intention when it was written
They believe the constitution should be interpreted to uphold the will of a leader/law and order over liberty of the people.
I’m not saying I disagree with you, just telling you what the legal argument will likely be when they arrest people or return force when people try to defend their home.
That argument JD Vance made about judges not having the authority to rule against executive decision is not his original argument. Adrian Vermeule is a Harvard constitutional law professor who has been making the argument favoring unchecked executive authority over all other government and executive power over liberty for a very long time.
The argument of ivy league legal scholars that are helping run his administration is that the people elected the president. The president’s duty is to do what he believes is best to protect the greatest number of people.
The Harvard constitutional law professor that created this legal theory is a huge fan of Carl Schmitt.
Schmitt created the Nazi legal agenda using a similar legal argument which argued the will of the leader should be placed above all written law because it was best for Germany, making the German constitution basically useless.
This allowed Hitler to legally carry out genocide.
Thank you for explaining, and yes, I get all of that about how Trump and his intellectuals are claiming to be about law and order. My point was a more simple one: it can’t be about law and order if the president is above the law. Maybe we could use the term “order and law” instead, since they’re subjecting the law to the hierarchy of political power.
This is the actual reason why there is a 2nd amendment
If you thought overmilitarization of local police was bad, just wait until ICE gets tanks.
Yes, I understand that the 2nd amendment alone can’t stop a dictator if they have the army on their side… even though that was at least partly the intention when it was written
They believe the constitution should be interpreted to uphold the will of a leader/law and order over liberty of the people.
I’m not saying I disagree with you, just telling you what the legal argument will likely be when they arrest people or return force when people try to defend their home.
That argument JD Vance made about judges not having the authority to rule against executive decision is not his original argument. Adrian Vermeule is a Harvard constitutional law professor who has been making the argument favoring unchecked executive authority over all other government and executive power over liberty for a very long time.
Let’s fuck 'em up then.
Law and order? What are you smoking?
Trump has always described himself as the law and order president
The argument of ivy league legal scholars that are helping run his administration is that the people elected the president. The president’s duty is to do what he believes is best to protect the greatest number of people.
If Trump says that this is law now, and this law is necessary to protect the country, then individual liberty and rights will have to be secondary for the good of the country
The Harvard constitutional law professor that created this legal theory is a huge fan of Carl Schmitt.
Schmitt created the Nazi legal agenda using a similar legal argument which argued the will of the leader should be placed above all written law because it was best for Germany, making the German constitution basically useless.
This allowed Hitler to legally carry out genocide.
Such executive supremacy would really only work if the Leader is infallible, and only a simpleton would think such a person exists.
Many people find comfort in authoritarian personalities.
It’s also possible if you’re just willing to stop paying attention, and believe the people in power are doing what’s best for you. Trust them 😉
Like I said, simpletons.
Thank you for explaining, and yes, I get all of that about how Trump and his intellectuals are claiming to be about law and order. My point was a more simple one: it can’t be about law and order if the president is above the law. Maybe we could use the term “order and law” instead, since they’re subjecting the law to the hierarchy of political power.
Following his orders = the law. He makes up the law, follow his orders.
That’s what dictators do.