No.476839
The US is not constitutionally dogmatic in any sense, and no state is actually "ideological". The Nazis were one of the few examples of an ideology-centered state where they squeal like faggots for it, and that was still at heart a continuation of Weimar under permanent and institutionalized total emergency order. Constitutions are not ideological documents, and belong to a stage of history where the concept of law had any spiritual authority in the minds of anyone. The US does flagrant acts that violate the constitution in the most basic ways and never states its "real" ideology in any government propaganda or by a persistent channel by which such a thing would be promulgated. So much of what is taken for granted today flagrantly violates nearly every part of the amendments to the constitution with the intent of doing exactly that, and anything at all in the constitution is a brittle farce that is wholly incompatible with what the US became in the 20th century. Only parts of the facade still exist from the Constitution. They even hint at violating egregiously post-1947 constitutional amendments and rulings. For example, using the 25th amendment as a "medical coup" is not only completely against the intent of that, but would obviate any pretense that there is a law, no matter how much this decision is in the hand of Congress or the executive. The wording of it is intended to only be used if the President is actually incapacitated and wouldn't be able to step down or speak at all. Suggesting its use for that purpose shows the disdain liberals and conservatives have for any pretense of law, because it would set a precedent that expert opinion for a spurious medical reason overrides the institutions that write any law. If it happened, it would effectively be the end of the country and any possibility that there even could be a different constitution. It would make clear that eugenics is the only law left. That's why it's pushed by the vanguard as a talking point. If the charge of incompetence or maladministration is the purpose, impeachment would be the constitutional answer, and that was done to Trump. Incompetence, maladministration, pretty much openly treasonous acts that Trump would brag about doing, should have been enough to remove him, with the official pretexts for impeachment being only the start of a laundry list of offenses against Trump. But, the liberals don't ever want to actually remove Trump. Why would they get rid of something that gave them everything they wanted and keeps giving them more? But, more likely, when it's time to remove a president, he will be made to step down - or else. That precedent has been set more than once and no one needs to be reminded of what really rules. The point of this farce isn't to de-legitimize a working constitutional law or even a working lawmaking and judging body, but to de-legitimize the concept that any such thing is even possible. It wouldn't even be an "ideological state" as such. It would give the country entirely over to human resources and oligarchy, without even the pretense of a barrier. It would be, in effect, declaring that Oceania Has No Law. Ingsoc didn't have an "ideology" in the sense that was consistent. It was pure torture and eugenics.