Trending tags

Should we feel bad for wanting the assassination attempt against trump to have succeeded

Flopo Dlopo · 2024-07-16T05:29:55.130335+00:00

Imagine you were a citizen of the Weimar Republic in 1932. Parliamentary elections are happening and there is a far-right man gearing to get several cabinet seats. You are up to date with the politics of the times and believe there is a good chance that the coalition government will involve this party. However, you as with most politically minded individuals believe that this side of the incoming govt will be controlled mainly by giving some weak concessions a couple of big-named positions, but nothing major. 1933 comes along and that coalition places this man as chancellor with the understanding that the vice chancellor will temper this side of the govt and through the separation of power and votes of no confidence this is just political theater for a center-right administration. March 1933 there are several important events which lead to the chancellor having emergency powers granted, which he promptly used to thwart the constitutional power of the parliament (the main check on his power). This leads to this man. Effectively being a king and making that effective explicit with the Führerprinzip, the principle that "the Führer's word is above all written law". If we rewind to March of 1933, and you a citizen of this new democracy facing it's first major challenge notice that you are effectively creating a king decide to shoot and kill this chancellor, you would most likely be sent to prison and executed for killing a lawfully elected ruler. Moreover, history would forever consider you a villain who attacked their own country in a time of extreme stress. However, we who lived in the world where this man becomes, Fuhrer know that said action is more than justified but morally necessary. Recently the supreme court reinterpreted the constitution so as to say that a president cannot be tried for any action taken while doing presidential acts. This implies that if the president was to tell the FBI to kill his political opponent as that opponent is a Russian agent and it is a matter of national emergency that he could not be tried. The action itself is illegal, and the court recognizes that but it cannot legally do anything if it is an official action. Let's say that he is impeached, and the day of the hearing he tells the FBI that certain members of govt are Russian agents and it is a national emergency to kill them to protect state secrets. Again he cannot be tried unless impeached and now he can effectively not get impeached. More drastically let's say that a president makes an emergency executive order suspending the legislative branch as the legislative branch is the only branch that can impeach the president he is effectively a king. None of this is tested law, what is tested law is that a president can construct a full conspiracy with false electors to remain in power against the will of the people and if every action could be considered an executive action he cannot be held liable. And also cannot be impeached if he is not a sitting president at the time of impeachment. I.e. if an insurrection fails as long as it was planned while using presidential power he is immune. I am of the opinion that for all intents and purposes we currently live in a democracy in name only, and at any time the executive branch can choose to wave the right to vote in representatives without repercussion. I believe it is entirely moral to kill kings, and those you expect will institute a kingship.