Well as long as he declares that it's an "official act" he is certainly able to do that perfectly legally.
Given that the precedent is that the president can arbitrarily decide that the country is in a permanent state of national emergency and suspend the constitution indefinitely (which is literally what happened with the tariffs) that seems quite reasonable.
You are right without meaning to be. This is actually the correct interpretation. Who else decides if the country is in a state of emergency? That is politics.
The whole concept of "state of emergency" becomes meaningless if you are somehow in a permanent state of emergency. Or if there is no change in circumstances whatsoever and a new administration decides that the country is suddenly in a state of emergency for no particular reason.
Sure, its politics but it shouldn't be a hack for the president to do whatever he wants illegally. Obviously the courts should step in and stop this. Otherwise the constitution might as well be discarded and the congress disbanded.
It depends on the politician. And not whether they should but whether they could. That's the critical distinction. One that gets lost when ignorantly amplifying misquotes. The actual quote from Trump was that he could do so and not lose votes. About that he was correct. QED.
That answers the question of whether or not it was satire.
> s lost when ignorantly amplifying misquotes
Just barely squeezed that ad hominem in, with some plausible deniability. Nice.
In any case - I suppose it could, if one misquoted. Fortunately for me, was intentional as my version seems to reflect the gist of what you're saying: we (the people) shouldn't enforce the law when it comes to the actions of the leaders we elect.
