I agree, at this point. There is of course voter agency in 2 years.
Of course lots of voters (specifically the ones that voted for this) are pretty happy with the way things are going. So any kind of blowback is uncertain at best.
If the population were genuinely interested in removing Trump, they could elect 60 democrats to the senate and a house majority, then impeach. But again, a healthy chunk are happy, and a lot if the rest can't vote Democrat for social / tribal reasons.
But make no mistake, he operates above the law because the people think it's OK. They alone have the power to remove him.
Not necessarily. First for soft reasons: media and tech companies spreading disinformation. Second for hard reasons: elections can be postponed for <reasons>.
Article II Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, "the President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States."
The military repeatedly drills into trainees that they serve to defend and uphold the constitution, not the presidential orders. There are all kinds of lessons on when to disobey direct orders, when to speak up, how to speak up, what your protections are, etc. etc.
The military is not going to take action until it is absolutely necessary. Yes, the military is sworn to uphold the constitution, even over presidential rule but it's also well understood that a military coup should be avoided at all costs. Once initiated you cannot undo this. It has significant repercussions and has significant risk of starting a civil war. It is not a thing that starts one day and ends the next. It is a thing that at best last weeks, likely lasts months, but could last indefinitely.
It is also worth mentioning that the military is not a uniform and monolithic entity. If you're asking what arm is on the other side of that civil war, well it was originally part of the one the initiated the coup in the first place.
Trust me, no one wants a military coup. It should not be a tool used lightly. Do not ask for this until all other options have been exhausted
So far, their actions are compatible with both hypotheses.
It's when the orders come in to directly use military force to support unconstitutional acts that we find out, not simply when the military fails to intervene in legal disputes.
Military answers to whomever it thinks it's best to get paid. If relationship between government and the people fails so hard that collection of taxes to fund the military is threatened then the military sides either with the people and deposes the government or with the government and suppresses the unrest.
"the military" isn't a single entity. If things really got bad I suspect there would breaks all over the place as various groups (across all ranks) decide to either follow or refuse orders coming down. It would be chaos, the fact that things could get so bad that we're even talking about it is already a very bad sign.
I'm sure there's always some back and forth inside the structure of the military but since it's insular singular top down organization it's usually not visible to civilians and they only get exposed to the consensus that military eventually reaches. Since everybody in the military is armed there's very little benefit to actively fighting with each other using sizable force because it brings no one closer to ensuring getting paid. So any staunch opponents of consensus are just getting deposed or at most assassinated. Everything usually happens quite peacefully.
U.S. law requires the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to have served as the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of staff of the Army, the chief of naval operations, the chief of staff of the Air Force, the commandant of the Marine Corps, or the commander of a unified or specified combatant command.
Just after 2:00 a.m. eastern time this morning, the Senate confirmed Retired Air Force Lieutenant General John Dan Caine, who goes by the nickname “Razin,” for chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by a vote of 60–25.
Although Caine has 34 years of military experience, he did not serve in any of the required positions.
The law provides that the president can waive the requirement if “the President determines such action is necessary in the national interest,” and he has apparently done so for Caine.
The politicization of the U.S. military by filling it with Trump loyalists is now, as Kendall writes, “indisputable.”
There is a chain of command in the military, you have to follow orders even if you disagree with them (unless they are unconstitutional). You may express your disagreement to your superiors, but you may not publicly distance yourself. She would be courtmartialed for this in most militaries, and probably in the US as well in a more serious situation.
