[Renegade]

An executive order cannot trump a constitutional amendment.

[babygene]

“An executive order cannot trump a constitutional amendment.”

You wait and see...

[redgolum]

History says different.
Lincoln, Wilson, heck Bush have all shown that EO’s have the force of law until someone contests them. And they are hell to contest and get a judge to hear them.

[lentulusgracchus]

An executive order cannot trump a constitutional amendment.

But an E.O. can allow a President to screw around with it, and dare anybody to mess with him. With a SewerRat majority in the Senate, Bozo's braver than brass, because he knows he can't be touched.

Clinton was the test case, and representative democracy failed ... because Harry Reid and Tom Daschle were there to make sure it failed.

Sen. Byrd in 1998 was the "conscience of the Senate", and he made sure people understood that he thought Clinton "guilty as charged" of "high crimes and misdemeanors" ..... but under Daschle's bludgeoning, he shut up and fell into line, and with that, the Framers' vision of what the Senate should be, died.

As for E.O. <=> the Constitution, see Justice Rehnquist's consideration of inter arma silent leges in his All the Laws but One, a review of contests between con law and executive power throughout U.S. history, with special emphasis on the fantastic precedential damage Lincoln did in the Civil War.