> It's vitally important to separate out "US Gov" with "Donald Trump"
But they’re operating as one and the same. Or to put it in question form? What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve?
The impotence of Congress is astonishing. Constitutionally the tariff power is exclusive to Congress, and Trump is exercising it only through emergency powers. Congress could end this easily had they a mind to. Presumably someone could make a challenge to the Supreme Court, but IANAL so it's not clear who has the standing to sue.
As a former Republican, and a Reagan conservative the utter cowardice and corruption of the Republican party nauseates me. No principles, no ethics.
> What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve?
Nothing, because the government can't actually do anything in this situation. Trump's regime exploited the inherent weakness of every government, known from the times of Plato's Republic: quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
The government enforces its laws against general populace by means of monopoly on violence. If you and I break the law, we face the consequences outlined by the law. If we continually refuse to comply with those consequences, we will eventually be subjected to state-sanctioned violence until we do so.
But what happens if the government does not follow its own laws? Who enforces those laws? Sure, there are one or more entities whose job is to perform that enforcement, but those entities are also part of the government. What happens when they don't do that job?
The US government is structured in a way that is meant to mitigate that risk. There are different branches, and checks and balances, and all that stuff kids learn in civics classes and immigrants like me learn when we want to apply for naturalization. But these measures only mitigate the risk. They don't remove it completely, because it's ultimately impossible to remove.
Trump's regime has been allowed to circumvent these mitigations and, as a result, we are now in a situation that cannot be resolved by conventional means. If parts of the government try to resolve the constitutional crisis by following the Rule of Law, it will end up being ignored by those parts of the government that are already ignoring the Rule of Law. If those parts try to resolve it without following the Rule of Law, then what's the difference between them and the regime that caused the constitutional crisis in the first place?
But they’re operating as one and the same. Or to put it in question form? What’s the government doing to stop the “king” from wrecking the country the government is supposed to serve?