Man, that looks awesome. Personally I like the gold version, the d-pad looks like the mirror for a space telescope or a solar sail or something:

Very appropriate!

According to the SCOTUS, being ineligible for the Presidency isn't a barrier, to running or winning. So I say bring on AOC as the nominee instead of Biden!

Absolutely unsurprising. These are the same people who weaponised and withheld benefits to 9/11 first responders.

If you're aware of the text then why'd you claim the courts' interpretation gave the President the power of pardon? If you're aware of the text, why do you consider any interpretation except the obvious one as correct? If you're aware of the text, why'd you say

There has always been an understanding that the office of the president is above those laws

Instead of citing any specific thing? I'll tell you why on that last one: it's because it's never been tested, so it hasn't been interpreted this way before, and this SCOTUS is the only court in the history of the country that would declare an intepretation exactly opposite of what the Constitution says (disagree? Find another instance of it, under another SCOTUS, to prove me wrong).

You are right that

They also have the authority to alter the rules temporarily via executive orders.

But this is yet another reason the President should never have reason to outright break the law. There is no reason the President should ever have to break the law, and I will hold that position until such time as I get a satisfactory retort otherwise.

Sorry, you're wrong. The Constitution gives the president the power of pardon:

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1

"The President shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."

And again, the Constitution holds that all officers (of which the President is one) are subject to the law:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7:

"Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

It's right there in black and white. Go check any true and faithful copy you like.

Oh yeah? What's one situation in which the President would have to break the law to perform their duties? The President is the Chief Executive, literally part of the job is to preserve and uphold the law of the land, not to break it.

You're absolutely wrong about the check/balance being the ballot box. The checks and balances are set up throughout the Constitution explicitly:

1. Article I (Legislative Branch):

   • Congress can pass laws, but the President can veto them (Section 7).
   • Congress can override a presidential veto with a two-thirds vote (Section 7).
   • The Senate approves presidential appointments and treaties (Section 2).

2. Article II (Executive Branch):

   • The President executes laws but needs Senate approval for treaties and appointments (Section 2).
   • The President can be impeached by the House and removed by the Senate (Section 4).

3. Article III (Judicial Branch):

   • The courts can declare laws and executive actions unconstitutional (judicial review, established by Marbury v. Madison).

Finally, the constitution makes it perfectly clear that officers of the USA are still subject to criminal laws outside of impeachment:

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7: "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."

Nobody is above the law. Until now, it seems, but not because that's the way it's meant to be.

It's not too likely that any one of us will change the world, but every one of us can change someone's world. Even if that someone is a turtle.

You misapprehend me. Bacon in certain contexts, yes. Spam, no.

You're welcome to test that assertion at your convenience. Please do not let us know how it goes ಠ⁠_⁠ಠ

Yeah, I misremembered the extraction operation where they took out hostages using the pier: https://apnews.com/article/pier-humanitarian-aid-gaza-israel-un-2465291ca9308f9d97e3cc51a8cab6c7

And as a result I may have been uncharitable in my assessment.

Can't sue for defamation when it's the truth, Bretty-boy. Or, you can, but you won't win.

Probably. It's pretty clear the Constitution doesn't matter anymore. Maybe "I'm A Welfare-Frauding Fraudster And Massive Piece Of Shit" Favre can get a big enough bribe in front of Clarence "I'm A Traitorous Piece Of Shit Grifter Selling My Country To The Highest Bidder" Thomas to win the case.