Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdiddly | Hacker News Reader

Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison showed up at the Whipple Federal Building and were initially allowed in, but shortly after, asked to leave and blocked from touring the facility.

What pisses me off about this story is, that's the end of the story. We went in, they told us to get out, we told them they're breaking the law, they said "We don't care," and we realized how cogent and amazing that was, and said "Welp, that satisfies me! They sure did win that argument! Let's skedaddle everybody!" The only acceptable end of the story is that you went around and deputized whoever you needed and went back in there and got what you came for.

View on HN

I don't get it either. If you're a member of congress push your way in there! Let them cause a confrontation so that it can be fought in courts.

Whatever these people do sets precedent due to the public exposure they get. If they start more (physical) confrontations, the more extreme among their supporters may see that as an invitation to become less peaceful. The administration would see that as a justification for cracking down harder. Protesters that are breaking the law would be the icing on top.

Tim Waltz's decision to increasing the readiness of Minnesotas National guard shows that the situation is extremely tense and the opposition to the administration is forced to walk on eggshells.

It's a near perfect catch: do too little and they won't care and continue implementing their playbook. Do too much and they can and will move faster.

Peace at any price?

Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.

It is nearly impossible to argue for use of force and defend the current constitution at the same time. Those politicians would act against the one construct that gives them the legitimate power to act in the first place.

On that path, the current order would have to be broken down completely before a new one can be fully established. That would mean at least a new constitutional order and the US isn't ready for that. The reverence for the current constitution is has very strong roots in US society.

You're saying anyone using force to enforce the Constitution (yes, the current one, thanks for specifying) is automatically acting illegitimately. The Constitution isn't a nonviolence treatise; nowhere in it does it forbid the use of force to enforce itself. Also, I notice you appear to apply no such restriction upon the treasonous and the lawless, who are already working to undermine and oppose the Constitution and are apparently free to use violence to do that. This is literally the opposite of the truth and not how laws work. Unless you're saying all police enforcing laws are illegitimate? But then that means ICE is also illegitimate. It's a perfect catch.

I was looking at the roles of elected politicians in this, not the general public or the police force. I think I wasn't clear about this.

A constitution should have peace and prosperity for the country as one of its goals. This means that force against the people should be the monopoly of an institution that is governed by laws in order to uphold at least a minimum amount of order in pursuit of the other goals. That legitimizes police.

Now we get to the matter of how a certain constitutional order is allowed to defend itself against domestic threats within its own legal framework. The US constitution relies a lot on balance of power and does not regulate much else in case that this fails. I do not know of any constitutional right for a congressman to lead violent actions against other parts of the government. And that leads to the situation where the most effective actions to restore order are more detrimental to that order in the short term.

And the Democratic party is refusing to go there. Think of that what you will, but that's why their actions amd responses are so tame.

Senator Tillis today: the independence and credibility of DOJ is what are in question, not the Fed or Fed chairman. And he says he will block Fed nominees until the legal matter is resolved.

Republicans are the majority party. The opposition party constituents need to persuade only a handful of Republicans in each house, get them to caucus with Democrats, and you have an entirely lawful, civil, non-violent way of opposing a president.

This has a greater chance of enduring success than expecting an increasing body count of people getting shot in the face to persuade more people to participate.

I am aware most Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to enable Trump. But accepting that as the intractable part of the problem? No, the intractable part is extracting more votes out of the party in the minority.

I personally don't trust Republican members of congress to stand up against their administration in any meaningful and coordinated way. But I would love to see that happen as the start of a restoration of a functional balance of power. This could set the US on a nonviolent path to reduced tension and hopefully towards a normalcy in politics with the possibility of more honesty and fairness from th administration, open civil discourse around contentious topics and non-erratic decision making (I am still allowed to dream, right?)

I don’t trust them either, mainly because the Republicans in Congress were not elected for their trustworthiness to honor their oath to the Constitution, but to let Trump do as he wishes.

Almost all Republicans in Congress who challenged Trump have quit or lost their elections. The survivors do his bidding.

Hopefully they still have some limits we’re as yet unaware.

That is the appeal I’m making, is for these elected officials who ostensibly represent everyone in their district or state, not only the people who voted for them. They really do still old school tally up letters and phone calls.

I’m saying before the next election, that’s what we have. And peaceful assembly.

> Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.

Ok then. What's your plan to defeat them with force? Literally: Where's your army? Where are your guns?

"Doing too much" such that they move faster is called opposing them and losing, and really still consists of not doing enough. Doing enough to stop them (i.e. opposing them and winning) is doing enough.

In a way, you're not wrong... but I think actually doing enough requires ordinary citizens to rise up en masse, and I think they realize that's not going to happen, so unfortunately the safer option seems to be walking on eggshells.

This is submission to tyranny, and it’s not safer in the long run.

The only institution that matters once a regime rejects law and order, is we the people. If the people roll over, then they are submitting to their dominators, and no one is free.

You're not wrong. People are too comfortable to do anything though, so failure is likely inevitable.

Same thing has been happening at least since the Mayans... they refused to give up their lifestyles even in the face of their own surrounding natural resources being eaten up from their fast expansion, and they eventually died off.

Exactly. Let it become a spectacle. Let them cross red lines. Don’t let them regroup and come up with some falsified justification like Noem is doing repeatedly (with this policy, with Renee Good’s murder, etc).

Reply on news.ycombinator.com