IN NO CASE should the Constitution be “selectively enforced” as your method surly suggests.
__________
No no! Not MY method. I was just suggesting a scenario, NOT advocating any action.
With regard to who would “suspend the Constitution,” I agree that the President could not, nor could the Supreme Court. Only the Legislature could do so...But they have an ironclad, veto-proof majority, and if they got their backs against the wall, would YOU put it past them to vote to suspend the Constitution and “temporarily” give authority to the [Leftist, power-hungry] President?
I didn’t say it would be legal OR right — but I wouldn’t doubt for a second they are capable of it if it retains their power indefinitely.
I certainly never proposed “selective enforcement” of the Constitution. Not sure where you got that from...? But, we have had “selective observance” of the Constitution as far back as the prosecution of the Civil War, and certainly since the rise of Progressivism and the triumph of New Deal policies.... Do you not agree?
>I certainly never proposed “selective enforcement” of the Constitution. Not sure where you got that from...?
The Constitution places the President as the Commander-in-Chief of the military; to suspend the Constitution is to literally let them [the military] off any binding chains [in civilian governance].
>But, we have had “selective observance” of the Constitution as far back as the prosecution of the Civil War, and certainly since the rise of Progressivism and the triumph of New Deal policies.... Do you not agree?
Just because it is common practice does not make it right, or just.