Biden - Approval

[hollodero]

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: The POTUS publicly advocating for the passage of an unconstitutional law is clear grounds for impeachment.  It is literally no different than saying he wants to pass a law that forbids women from voting.  It's a clear violation of his oath of office.

Well, I would see a huge ethical difference. As for legally and if that's grounds for impeachment, I don't know. A president saying he wants to do things seems a bit thin for that in any circumstance. It's not a high crime and not a misdemeanor to advocate for things, imho.

It's impossible for me to get into the specifics you mentioned though. For lack of knowledge. I pull the foreigner card here.

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: On this you are incorrect.  Public support is absolutely not grounds for unconstitutional laws.

I think it is. I agree though, probably not on the basis of months, but in general and over time. But of course to be precise I'm not advocating passing laws in defiance of the constitution, but to amend the constitution. Or, in case of the 2A, maybe the legal interpretation.
But I don't know exactly how that process would go down, and I'd agree it was not what Biden had in mind probably. I know your constitution was amended several times, and possibly as a result of great public demand, advocates of change being voted into office and so on. Ideally it's a ballot box issue. But if enough folks that are for amending the 2A (or any other constitutional change) are elected, then I'd say it's legitimate to think about a change that apparently is widely supported. Not that this is the reality right now, sure.

But I don't want to defend Biden on that one, I can not and don't know if he'd deserve it here. This is just a very theoretical thought, and I should have known better as to talk to you about 2A issues. You have deep specific knowledge about it, I don't. All I can reply really is "But what about Boettcher vs. The state of Arizona?" and see how long it would take you to realize I made that up. Since this thread becomes a reunion of sorts, maybe Bels will show up and get into it more.

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This does lead us to another interesting topic, which is the "threat to our democracy" that the Dems like to consistently bang the drum to.  In fact we hear it frequently here as well.  Is not open defiance to a SCOTUS formed completely under the law an direct assault on our democracy?  Is not constantly labeling said court as "illegitimate" a direct assault on our democracy?  Again, we need to be consistent.  Either directly opposing our system is a direct danger to that system or it is not.

I think that is a bit constructed as a comparison. The threat to democracy Democrats mention is Trump leading violent insurrections, trying to overturn election results or to put people in place who will not defy such a request. The threat you mention is proposing a law that SCOTUS will struck down anyways. That is not so much a threat to democracy as it's the system avoiding that like it's supposed to; a point often made when it came to Trump's wild proposals and ideas.

(10-12-2022, 05:04 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Lastly, goddamn you, just when I thought I was out, you dragged me back in! 

Well,maybe me weaseling out of this reply makes you reconsider :) Else, what's the harm in engaging a bit. I myself was more frequently out of here for several weeks lately.