And silence is complicity.
Is flag burning to be redefined as violence under the Trump administration? Is civil disobedience or working to rule to be redefined as treason? Are you advocating this?
The argument that Kim Davis and her supporters would come back with is that she, like most of us, is operating under economic duress and will face real hardship if she leaves her state job. That she is being coerced by necessity into being an agent of approval for a marriage she sees as invalid, and a way of life she regards as depraved.
You doubtlessly scoff at this argument when she makes it, but will you do the same when federal civil servants are required to do things that are unacceptable to them (and you) in order to remain employed? You are going to have the chance to find out real soon.
Real civil disobedience involves hardship. It’s intrinsic to the act. It resonates with the greater public only when the actors refrain from mewling about hardship and carry on with dignity. Kim Davis’ stagey pissing and moaning about how put upon she was for even having to contemplate it was the greatest gift she could have given her opponents.
[quote=“hmclachlan, post:23, topic:92095, full:true”]
The argument that Kim Davis and her supporters would come back with is that she, like most of us, is operating under economic duress and will face real hardship if she leaves her state job.[/quote]
It’s a weak argument, especially considering that she was an elected official who refused to do her job and who, thanks to a previous appointment to a deputy position reporting to her own mother, was also found to have been overpaid for many years.
You know what elected officials with integrity do when they can’t in good conscience comply with laws they personally disagree with? They resign their position. They don’t whinge that they’ll go to the poorhouse because of it. Elected officials in America without that kind of integrity are either members of the GOP, or switch to it as Kim Davis did.
If they are unacceptable (both to them and me) under the terms I mentioned above, then I won’t be scoffing at them. That will also be true in the rare cases where they stand up in public for their professional standards or against demands by their employers that they cause substantive harm to others – two bases upon which Kim Davis could not stand up in public, which is why I scoff at her argument.
That must have been a compelling argument for the voters of Rowan County.
"Re-elect Kim Davis! She really needs the money!"
I disapprove of Trump as much as the next guy, but the predicament here is that you cannot reject a democratically elected government without rejecting democracy itself.
I mean sure, you could theoretically cause the government to cease to function, but what will stop the Republicans to respond in kind?
Democracy only works as long as everyone plays along. Once people refuse to do that, the whole thing unravels itself.
I hope I don’t have to tell you what happens next. Let’s just say that Democrats should really consider stock piling weapons as well.
But hey, maybe we can hope that the United States do split up this time. It increasingly seems to me that this whole experiment with Conservatives and Progressives living in the same country just didn’t work out.
You mean refusing to do the job for which she accepts money?
No-one’s rejecting the process, except insofar as they’re pointing out (once again) how broken and in need of reform the Electoral College is. Criticising the government itself is an integral part of democracy.
They’re rejecting the idea that this result is a “mandate” and that therefore the new government can enact whatever horrible policy it likes that undermines democratic institutions, including dismantling the electoral process or further breaking it.
It can be obstructed as much as possible, just like the GOP have spent the last 8 years doing.
You realize that “treason” has a VERY specific definition in US law? This isn’t it.
- I reject the premise that the Trump administration was democratically elected. The electoral college system that put him in power is inherently un-democratic.
- Trump has promised to use his position to enact several blatantly unconstitutional policies. It is the duty of all patriotic Americans to reject any such efforts.
- By refusing their Constitutionally-mandated duty to consider any Supreme Court nominee put forth by President Obama, Senate Republicans have already demonstrated that they are unwilling to work within our existing system of democratic government. We owe them nothing.
Trump lost the popular vote count by 2.8 million votes. What’s already been rejected is the will of the voters – you know, “democracy itself.” Why should those who oppose Trump’s upcoming policies “play along” with a broken system?
That’s the problem right now – nobody, on either side, has any idea what to expect from a Trump Administration. Pretty much every political scholarly thinkpiece boils down to “your guess is as good as mine” while using the term “wild card” a lot. He’s made it pretty clear that he’s thrown out nearly every campaign promise he made, and on virtually any issue, you can find quotes from him enthusiastically supporting it or vehemently denouncing it.
All we can do is look at his team, people who seem to have been specifically chosen to systematically destroy the offices they’re being put in charge of. And that’s where the resistance comes in. If you’re an EPA employee being asked to do the opposite of what your job is, I think everyday acts of resistance will be commonplace and necessary.
Resisting unconstitutional laws versus resisting US constitutional law where it went contrary to theocratic rule?
Obviously the same thing, thanks for catching that hypocrisy for us.
It was good enough to get Trump elected. Are there really any negative ramifications, from his point of view?
Oh, wait, you mean standing up to the traitor and those who elected him is bad. Got it.
What I’d like to see is a way for individual federal taxes to not go to other states but stay in the state they came from.
Ann Coulter, is that you?
18 U.S. Code § 2381 - Treason: “Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason”
Exactly how does planning work slowdowns, strikes, community activism, land trusts and communalism have ANYTHING to do with declaring war on the US or giving aid to our enemies?
In the words of Rush Limbaugh - “words MEAN things”
I’m sure it’s been pointed out ad infinitum that our president-elect is literally guilty of treason as defined by the US Code of Law, but I guess it bears repeating.
Treason? Really? I’ll need your definition of treason, because none of the activities described are treason.
Working with the head of state for a historical enemy of our country in order to subvert our governmental process is aiding and abetting our enemy.