No Stupid Questions

Yes, the President can be impeached and removed by Congress. On the opposite side of the coin a President can veto laws passed by Congress, which Congress can override but it's harder than passing a law. The problem is when Congress also goes nazi at the same time. In that case we're fucked. In fact I think Article 97 sub-paragraph E13/W even says, "Such conditions and circumstances shall by Law constitute Fuckage."

The CIA can always assassinate a president who gets too far out of line, ~~like what happened to JFK,~~ but they don't tend to mind the right so much as the left.

He knew it from the beginning. People didn't listen.

He's just a symptom of the real problem, which is that he exposed himself as a nazi a long time ago and still got reelected.

Second Amendment.

The odds aren't in our favor.

It turns out that a handful of young land-owning white men from the 1700s, born almost 200 years before the advent of game theory, didn't actually properly anticipate every way in which the political system they were designing could fail.

You can impeach a president for any reason. You don't need a crime or such committed, all you need is congress to do it.

Be careful what you wish for though since the other party could do "tit for tat" with the president you support.

It’s not illegal to be a nazi in the USA BUT it’s worth noting that Trump is more garden variety fascist than Nazi. He’s not looking to create the ubwrmensch.

Our government leans heavily on decorum and good faith. Trump's success has been due to his refusal to adhere to decorum and good faith. Our system doesn't know how to handle that other than shaming and shaking fists so Trump gets free reign to do whatever he wants.

Bro we have the oldest still in use codified constitution in the world and haven't updated it in 40 years, really longer. What exactly made you think this fucked up system was anywhere close to resilient?

In 1776, people didn't know what fascism was. Hell there wasnt even consensus on what capitalism was, Wealth of Nations was published that same year. They had never seen a capitalist system degenerate, as would happen in France under Louis Napoleon in the 1850s.

They knew what feudalism was, which was bad and a form of authoritarian autocracy, but this isn't Fascism. They were afraid that the kings and queens would get restored, as revolutionaries (and capitalism was revolutionary and progressive at that time) they were safeguarding against a counter revolution which would come from monarchists.

There is no way they could conceive of a movement to overthrow capitalism, which they barely understood although being the revolutionary capitalist class, that would come from a greater demand of social reforms, one where the class they were a part of would rule society rather than just administer it as they had for centuries, one where a class that they didn't even know about, the proletarian working class, would supplant them and bring greater prosperity and equality. This movement developed fully in Russia and Europe after the first world war when the last of the weakened feudal aristocracy destroyed their own continent to fight over scraps of colonial internationalism. A revolution in Russia inspired the global working class, especially where they were highly organized and industrialized such as Italy and Germany, and terrified the ruling capitalist classes of those countries.

In the shadow of the emerging workers movement grew the dialectical opposite and evil twin of German and Italian communism: Fascism. Fascists gleefully fight and kill communists, and desire power above all else, exploiting contradictions in liberal democracy (that's "liberal" meaning supports private property, not cool liberals that like freedom and justice) to confuse the masses and gain power. The ruling classes, weakened by decades of militant worker struggles, assented to the will of the fascists and in a last ditch effort to preserve their dwindling control, handed power over to them. The rest is history.

The founders couldn't conceive of the conditions you describe as they either didn't exist or wouldnt be developed enough to study for 50-70 years. Not all forms of authoritarianism are the same. They thought they were doing away with their version of it. Besides, the "founding fathers" gags violently would have fucking loved Trump

The voters were supposed to be that check and the Framers were explicit in that it was part of how they designed the Constitution.

Even regarding electing a felon, the Framers didn't want a case where one state pushed through a a felony conviction quickly to keep someone out of office.

The mechanism is the three branches of power providing checks and balances and voting. But when the people elect them to all three branches. It kinda defeats the purpose