An academic question for academic discussion.

[1monster]

The power of the government to govern comes from the people. The US Constitution is, in effect, a contract. WE THE PEOPLE consent to allow the various branches to govern under specific and general stipulations, terms, and agreements. All branches of the government have specific and general responsibilities, powers, restrictions.

The Constitution allows for the removal of bad actors or those who are incompetent (for whatever reason) from government office.

Discussion question: If the Executive Branch grossly violates the Constitution (by say, ordering war-like actions on a peaceful city because the opposition party is in control of the city), or by "suspending Constitution (or any part)," and the other two branches do not act decisively to stop the (and prevent further) violation(s), is there still a contract between WE THE PEOPLE and the government? Or has that contract become null and void and the government no longer has the moral or legal right to govern?

Disclaimer: This is just a thought exercise to see what others think; it is not advocating for any course of action of any kind. I'm nearly 70, have bad knees, and pretty much just want to be left alone to live my life out peacefully. And I can't quite beliwve that this disclaimer is necessary.

[ZDU]

1. CHARADE... it is all window-dressing

a stage filled with idiotic actors

[surfered]

2. Until we can use the power of the ballot box, we're at the mercy of the Judiciary.

By demonstrating and protesting we can pressure Congress to act; however, I don’t hold out much hope as the GOP politicians have no spine.

Throughout our history, our fellow citizens have sacrificed life and limb to protect and preserve our freedoms, but these guys won’t risk being criticized by a demented, draft dodging felon.

[bucolic_frolic]

3. The Social Contract theory of governance rose from the Enlightenment

Plenty of philosoph heavies to back up the idea. But today you know the gatekeepers have to abide by it. Which they're not.

[FirstLight]

4. Yes,

Social contracts, including those held by the governed and the government, are only as good as the participants' actions to uphold them!

I agree, I am 55, bad back, and want to live my life in harmony - and make sure my kids can do more than just SURVIVE in this world.
That said, we are at a crossroads. Where we as a collective need to remember that WE are the ones holding the cards in this contract with those "in power"... they SERVE us because we gave them that right. We can take that right away...

[DavidDvorkin]

5. Yes, through our elected representatives, via impeachment and then conviction and removal from office

Unfortunately, the party in control of Congress doesn't care about any of that.

The other option, revolution, is dangerous, has terrible side effects, and is not supported by the majority of the country.

[Glorious bastard]

6. The constitution is not technically a contract.

It is a set of rules and conditions under which "we the people of the United States of America" agree to be governed to preserve "certain unalienable rights" that are referred to in the Declaration of Independence. The obligations of this relationship are all on the government, not on the governed. So there is no contract to declare null and void, and even if there were, there is no instrument to do so other than We the People taking action to reclaim our unalienable rights, which would be indistinguishable from actions in the absence of a contract.

These actions are limited and consequential, and the outcomes of such actions are unpredictable.

One is We the People deciding to overthrow current government, peacefully or violently. Another is the action which you preclude in the OP: the two branches of government, Legislative and/or Judiciary, checking the Executive branch and restoring it to its intended function on behalf of We the People. The third is for We the People to petition the government to hold unscheduled elections, but this will have to be done through the branches of government you stipulate to be dysfunctional and incapable of living up to their obligations. The fourth is non-intervention by We the People, in hopes of the government to eventually heal itself. The fifth is maintaining the status quo and awaiting an opportune moment to implement any of the options listed above. The sixth is anarchy: ignoring the government altogether.

None of these seem particularly appealing to me. So I am not offering a solution to a current situation, only attempting to address a hypothetical you posed.