People seem not to understand that the presidency is defined by the Constitution; it's not subject to compliance, voluntary or otherwise.
I'm not the president by definition. It doesn't matter if I agree; it doesn't matter if I refuse to accept that I'm not the president; by definition I'm not because I don't fulfill the constitutional definition of what the president is.
All this talk about Trump refusing to accept an election or, in the last couple of days, saying he would take a third term misses that it's not up to him. He can think he's the president all he wants, but the Constitution, not Trump's beliefs, define whether or not he is the president.
I wish more people understood this because it's an important part of understanding how the US government is designed.
And it's an important part of ignoring #Trump trolling.
You are expressing exactly the misunderstanding that I'm trying to highlight there.
Constitution holding him accountable? No, that's exactly what I'm trying to point out, this is not about anything holding anyone accountable any more than the definition of water holding accountable people who say this bucket of rocks is full of water.
There's no holding accountable. It's not a functionary or mechanical statement. The presidency is defined by the Constitution. If you don't meet the definition of being president, then you are not president as per the Constitution.
There's no holding anybody accountable, no action, there's just a definition and then a question of whether or not you meet that definition.
At the moment Trump is president not because of any process but because he meets the constitutional definition of being president. It's not that the Constitution supports his presidency or anything like that, it's not a process, it's simply here's a definition, and this dude satisfies the details of that definition.
I know I'm repeating myself a couple times in this reply, but it's because you are highlighting exactly the thing I'm trying to clarify.
@volkris I don't know what your point is. Are you trying to say that Trump is trolling us, and any efforts from him to extend his presidency past 2028 will fail, and we should just ignore his threats?
@johnsturgeon nope.
With regard to opposing Trump, I'm trying to say that if people don't know the rules of the game then they're not going to be able to field an effective opposition, which we've seen in spades over the last decade.
And in the larger picture I just wish people who were interested in how the US is getting along were better informed about how the federal government actually operates.
I'm actually more interested in the bigger picture than in Trump, but If you really want to talk about him then this has particular relevancy about the strategies to oppose him and deal with him.
@johnsturgeon or let me put it a different way.
Am I not President because the Constitution is holding me accountable? No. I'm not president because I don't meet the definition of President in the Constitution.
It has absolutely nothing to do with holding anyone accountable and that's the entire point.
@volkris I think that your believe that the constitution will hold him accountable to itself is naive.
His current track record, and his pace of dismantling of / ignoring the institutions that exist to enforce the constitution suggest to me that he would (in > 3 years' time) have ample time to be in a position to -- if not run again -- simply declare a national emergency and cancel the elections.
The Constitution has show itself to be only as strong as the institutions are that protect it.