That's true. The office of president is not a dictatorship. That is what being bound by the strictures fo the constitution means.
A president cannot single handedly wipe out every "unconstitutional" law on the books.
Nor did we ask him to; that's the Supreme Court's role.
All I asked is for him to not put any more on the books.
He is sworn to UPHOLD those laws. He would be impeached if he did not.
He is sworn to uphold the constitution, above all. And yes, had we impeached the first president who failed to do this, we would not have the problem we have today, where presidents aren't just not expected not to uphold the constitution, they're expected to intentionally violate it.
Impeachment and removal is a check-and-balance that has never been realized, to our discredit.
You are projecting an image of a president that can NEVER be achieved beyond a complete suspension of the very constitution that you want upheld. Your litmus test can never be achieved as long as there are those that do not share your definition of a real conservative, which includes approx 75% of the country. You are doomed to be disappointed in anyone that is elected because no one can meet the standard you have set.
Who said anything about holding the president to my definitions? All I want is for him to obey the constitution. If that's too much to ask, then that office really is a dictatorship, and this is not a nation of laws.
where presidents aren't just not expected not to uphold the constitution
where presidents aren't just expected not to uphold the constitution