10-13-2022, 06:04 PM
(10-12-2022, 05:37 PM)hollodero Wrote: 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.
I certainly agree that advocating for an unconstitutional act would not, generally, be an impeachable offense. Honestly, the way the law is works I don't think even signing off on it would technically be grounds for impeachment. I just find it interesting that the party screaming about "threats to our democracy" would advocate for blatantly unconstitutional laws.
Quote: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.
Well, it is in that popular upswell could certainly motivate politicians to pass a constitutional amendment. But popular support in no way supersedes that process, nor should it, ever.
Quote: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.
Hah, more than fair enough.
Quote: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.
No, the threat I mention is a consistent and deliberate effort to paint the current SCOTUS as "illegitimate". This is absolutely the same as claiming Biden is an "illegitimate" POTUS because of supposed election fraud. Think whatever you want about McConnell cheesing Obama out of one SCOTUS seat, and I'd probably agree with you 100%. But he acted completely within the law and the rules of the Senate. Hence labeling the current composition of the SCOTUS as illegitimate clearly, deliberately and falsely undermines the extremely important role it plays as a coequal part of the three branches of the federal government.
Quote: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.
True. I think largely restricting myself to responding to certain people is probably in order.
