Summary

Kevin Roberts, president of the Heritage Foundation and architect of Trump’s Project 2025, employs intense fire-related rhetoric in his upcoming book, Dawn’s Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America, advocating for a “controlled burn” of institutions he deems corrupt or antithetical to conservative goals.

Roberts calls for dismantling entities like the FBI, Ivy League schools, and the New York Times, framing it as necessary to “renew” America.

His incendiary language has sparked controversy, with critics alarmed by the violent imagery and its implications for Trump’s second term.

  • candybrie@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    16 days ago

    I mean anything he does deemed unconstitutional can be challenged by any appeals court judge that can strike it down.

    And then appeal it to the SCOTUS who literally gave him criminal immunity. With Congress and SCOTUS, it doesn’t matter what the Constitution actually says. Just what they can twist it with paper thin reasoning to mean.

    So who’s stopping him?

    • scripthook@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 days ago

      You underestimate the reason we have separation of powers. If Trump wanted to get rid of term limits he would need 2/3 votes from both houses which he doesn’t have and 38 states need to ratify. This also includes with any constitutional change. There’s red tape for a treason

      • modeler@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        16 days ago

        While the powers are separated, if all three are aligned there is nothing they can’t do. The supreme court has already demonstrated it’s able to reinterpret the constitution in a way no other court has done in history.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        16 days ago

        That amendment really meant consecutive terms. So Trump being president again is fine.

        That’s just as ridiculous of an argument as the president being criminally immune.

        When the branch that has the final say on what the Constitution means is on board, you don’t have to actually amend it.