This is why there are checks and balances. The laws and constitutions are not rules in a game that can be exploited arbitrarily. There is an intention behind them and law is and should be interpreted in that way.
If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.
> If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.
It's Common law not French/European law. The intent of the lawmakers is, in common law, more or less completely assumed to be present in the text of the law. French/European courts looks to the context the law was made in and other documents produced; common law judges mostly don't (but do look much more to precedent.)
And there is of course the problem of judges in the US being fairly strongly partisan politicised (since all power in the US is partisan politicised), so the interpretation will depend on which party has lately stuffed the supreme court.
There's some thought that it's around presidential pardons, and it's not clear the supreme court would strike down nearly any use of them or allow the legislature to do so short of an amendment.
A despot may also pack the Supreme Court to change the rules, although the existing Supreme Court may prevent the court from being packed. I am curious what would happen if all the members of the existing Supreme Court were to suffer an unfortunate accident in this situation. edit: Of course you still need Congress to approve the nominees.
To me, this is the most obvious one. A single bomb could wipe put the entire court and in a polarized congress, the vote could go along party lines and only a majority is needed to approve.
The ruling party just needs to include a few picks from the other party to give the appearance of balance.
Bonus points: the president can then pardon the bomber.
If this loophole exists it probably goes against the intention of the lawmakers and would be struck down by supreme court.