It's my understanding that is correct. but consider that the laws being enacted need to be Constitutional. Therefore, is there a law that could have been considered to bring charges against Trump. And would the Constitution be able to stand with and behind that law?It wasn't my understanding that the Supreme Court dealt in criminal matters. What they do is determine if an action is Constitutional or not. That is their limited power and their only brake on an authoritarian's rise to power.He's saying that America's next authoritarian will be much more competent and then he leaves it there with no explanation. I found it interesting enough to ask him to elaborate.I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying the OP has no point because the next authoritarian who can do it better hasn't arrived yet?[
Your comment on Trump trying to steal the vote and it being an authoritarian move, is closer to being on topic. But it still misses the point being asked by the OP. Mostly because the OP didn't really make any point that would speak to his notion that America's next authoritarian will be more competent.
Therefore I made an attempt to draw him/her out on what he/her based the suggested premise.
Do you have any further ideas?
Is there going to be a next authoritarian? Was Trump an authoritarian or did he just have intentions of becoming one? A really simple question is, did Trump break the law to some extent that could be dealt with under the US Constitution? And than that would beg the question on whether the US Constitution would be able to deal with stopping authoritarian rule? Or, if Trump did break the law in a substantial way then would the Constitution be overruled by the incoming regime for the sake of keeping the peace?
Or, if Trump did break the law then why didn't the Constitution demand that the law of the land deal with him appropriately?
Keeping in mind, those questions are only guesses on what Tom Payne meant. Do you have any answers to my questions while we wait for him to expand on his topic?
Apparently Trump could have shot a citizen dead on Main street and escaped any law to punish him for the crime of murder.
Is that an indication of a fatally flawed Constitution that isn't capable of demanding trial and punishment be carried out?
I'm no expert on constitutional matters in the US but I'm trying to make rational suggestions on dealing with the questions
Your comments? And then, do you have an opinion on how the Scotus will deal with the lawsuit by Texas, etc. parties?