Resolves YES if, in the event of Joe Biden winning the 2024 US presidential election, either he or a member of his cabinet criticize the Constitution or call its validity into question after his inauguration but before the 2026 midterm elections. Resolves NO otherwise.
N/A if Joe Biden does not become the President.
By criticize, I mean either referring to the Constitution negatively (e.g. "wrong", "rubbish", "lousy", "sub", "bad", etc), or calling for all or parts of it to be suspended and/or ignored. The statement should also include the word "Constitution" or some variation (e.g. "constitutional")
If the statement simply says the Constitution is incomplete but does not refer to it negatively, that is not enough for a YES. For an idea of a statement that would safely resolves YES, the example mentioned in this article would more than suffice.
"Cabinet" here refers to any of the heads of the executive departments, or cabinet-level officials.
These markets are meant to ascertain the risk of increased US authoritarianism in a Donald Trump presidency versus a Joe Biden presidency.
Twin Market:
Similar Markets:
Related questions
@DrEthan that does not count, as that'd fall under saying it is incomplete. If some negative term is used to describe the Constitution (in addition to saying it needs an amendment), then this question would resolve YES
@jBosc ok then I suggest changing this part of the description.
"By criticize, I mean either referring to the Constitution negatively (e.g. "wrong", "rubbish", "lousy", "sub", "bad", etc), or calling for all or parts of it to be suspended, altered and/or ignored."
Since calling for an amendment counts as "calling for parts of it to be altered"