Arguing matters of law regarding transfers of power in the highest echelons of government is … misguided. It’s like arguing with Reddit mods about what their rules say when they ban you. Or more classically, paraphrasing Pompey (via Plutarch), “Stop quoting laws at us. We have the swords.” What the laws/rules literally say doesn’t mean anything; how they’re enforced is all that matters [1].
(I suppose if one were religious, one could consider the letter of the the Law sacred in some way, not to be profaned regardless of consequence or enforcement, but I am not.)
If you win, there are many ways it can be made legal. For example, the Supreme Court rules on what the law says, they say the Constitution overrides all federal laws, and the Constitution says the President has the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons,” so he pardons himself and everyone involved [2].
The strategy Trump tried (or one very similar) worked in 1876. I consider that extremely relevant, though as I said earlier, the plan was unlikely to work in 2020. The Electoral Count Act passed in the interim mattered insofar as its threat was sufficient to dissuade Mike Pence (and probably several state governors) from coöperating, so I guess it did its job.
I don’t know what you mean by “fine.” I would have preferred Trump win. Some reasons for which I listed on my top-level comment.
I’m not sure precisely what you mean by “legal,” (according to whom?) but no, not in the slightest.
Is it even worth listing examples of times politically powerful members of the ruling class flouted laws they would have enforced harshly against commoners? Just look at the many instances during the “covid” lockdowns, for a start.
You could say their actions would still be illegal even if the law can’t be enforced against them, but I consider that a distinction without a difference.
This comment is just confusing me even more. If you found out that Trump threatened Mike Pence with a gun to try to force him to count Trump’s electors, would that be bad? You would prefer if Trump won, so that sounds like a good thing for him to do, right? But maybe you think it’s bad for presidents to threaten people with guns, so you think it’s bad. Can you answer what you think about this hypothetical?
it’s bad for presidents to threaten people with guns
They do this indirectly all the time. This is the basis of all laws of the federal government. Yes, I think it’s bad, but I don’t think it’d be fundamentally any worse for Trump to point a gun at Pence than for, say, an FBI agent (acting under the aegis of the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) to point a gun at a drug dealer.
But I agree it’d have been a stupid thing to do for many reasons: the threat wouldn’t be credible, he’d get removed from office even if it works, people he needs to govern would turn on him, voters will switch to supporting Democrats, … that’s not winning.
Edit: This is also the basis of my criticism of the rabble-rousing on January 6. It’s primarily a matter of aesthetics.
So the problem is just that it wouldn’t help him win? So if threatening Pence with a gun would have made him president, and the supreme court said that he was immune from criminal prosecution, it wouldn’t affect if you’d vote for him again? (Ignoring that it would be his third term.)
Arguing matters of law regarding transfers of power in the highest echelons of government is … misguided. It’s like arguing with Reddit mods about what their rules say when they ban you. Or more classically, paraphrasing Pompey (via Plutarch), “Stop quoting laws at us. We have the swords.” What the laws/rules literally say doesn’t mean anything; how they’re enforced is all that matters [1].
(I suppose if one were religious, one could consider the letter of the the Law sacred in some way, not to be profaned regardless of consequence or enforcement, but I am not.)
If you win, there are many ways it can be made legal. For example, the Supreme Court rules on what the law says, they say the Constitution overrides all federal laws, and the Constitution says the President has the “Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons,” so he pardons himself and everyone involved [2].
The strategy Trump tried (or one very similar) worked in 1876. I consider that extremely relevant, though as I said earlier, the plan was unlikely to work in 2020. The Electoral Count Act passed in the interim mattered insofar as its threat was sufficient to dissuade Mike Pence (and probably several state governors) from coöperating, so I guess it did its job.
I don’t know what you mean by “fine.” I would have preferred Trump win. Some reasons for which I listed on my top-level comment.
I’m not sure precisely what you mean by “legal,” (according to whom?) but no, not in the slightest.
Is it even worth listing examples of times politically powerful members of the ruling class flouted laws they would have enforced harshly against commoners? Just look at the many instances during the “covid” lockdowns, for a start.
You could say their actions would still be illegal even if the law can’t be enforced against them, but I consider that a distinction without a difference.
This comment is just confusing me even more. If you found out that Trump threatened Mike Pence with a gun to try to force him to count Trump’s electors, would that be bad? You would prefer if Trump won, so that sounds like a good thing for him to do, right? But maybe you think it’s bad for presidents to threaten people with guns, so you think it’s bad. Can you answer what you think about this hypothetical?
They do this indirectly all the time. This is the basis of all laws of the federal government. Yes, I think it’s bad, but I don’t think it’d be fundamentally any worse for Trump to point a gun at Pence than for, say, an FBI agent (acting under the aegis of the Executive Branch, i.e., the President) to point a gun at a drug dealer.
But I agree it’d have been a stupid thing to do for many reasons: the threat wouldn’t be credible, he’d get removed from office even if it works, people he needs to govern would turn on him, voters will switch to supporting Democrats, … that’s not winning.
Edit: This is also the basis of my criticism of the rabble-rousing on January 6. It’s primarily a matter of aesthetics.
So the problem is just that it wouldn’t help him win? So if threatening Pence with a gun would have made him president, and the supreme court said that he was immune from criminal prosecution, it wouldn’t affect if you’d vote for him again? (Ignoring that it would be his third term.)