This is a nonsensical reform. Every check and balance is itself a risk, nonetheless one can not build a safe Republic by removing them.

The US thinks it is the check for Europe but this offers no check for the leader of a superpower such as the US.

(It's apparently a flaggable offense to believe a legitimate republic is measured by making sense even if making sense goes against Anglo Saxon sensibilities since Cromwell.. I guess we can call time of death on the city on a hill.)

▲

mamonster 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Well if you want the possibility of military tribunals you have to accept the risks of something like the 1962 Algiers coup, the 27 May revolution or (if you want a more recent example) the Wagner rebellion. I'm not certain that would be palatable to Americans but I'm not American myself so wouldn't know.

	▲	kojacklives 8 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I grew up in an America that spent a lot to explain what it was willing to do for a Republic and ideals. The people who will quietly give a traitor an illegal 3rd term to avoid a more upsetting crises that could either save the Republic or just make it clearer it is over are apparently what the US actually is.