He doesn't believe in it. He likes writing and signing Executive Orders much better.
Why should he bother with the old way if he doesn't have to? He thinks he doesn't have to. What are you gonna do about it?
What am I going to do about it?
Any bravado as to violence would be very unwise to post on the internet. I even suspect people who bait people to such statements might be law enforcement attempting to smoke out the potential trouble makers to track them down.
So I would say I would try my very hardest to get my elected officials to observe their Constitutional obligations they swore to uphold. And I encourage everyone else to do the same.
That's been the constitutional-governance problem Slick created by beating impeachment. He really should have been removed for cause on the articles brought against him, but the 'Rats voted down the line, in Stalinist lockstep, for acquittal -- including Sens. Bob Byrd of W. Va. and Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, both of whom let it out that they thought him guilty.
Now the problem is, with a lockstep partisan vote in his pocket in the Senate (and when was the last time the Republic elected 68 senators of the opposing party to the Senate?), the President can now break the law, break the Constitution, even break your face with impunity. That's the hard-rock truth. Clinton showed that there is no real remedy for a scofflaw president, even a felon.