Hacker News Reader

Comment by rdiddly | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com