Right, it couldn’t possibly have anything to do with the current flood of people coming forward with their stories.
7 Likes
I didn’t hear silence. I heard about 40 questions shouted all at once. Maybe they were just stunned by the sheer rhubarb. Or maybe waiting for a reporter to ask, “just how great is your tax plan?”
2 Likes
I also heard Senator Grassley laughing awkwardly and telling them all to go away now.
4 Likes
You’re probably a better listener than I am.
@beschizza any reason this is general and not boing for the category?
Or, also, people who know the guy is a monster deciding “I have to try to stop this person becoming more powerful”.
I swear this isn’t the first such video of Mitch sitting like a stunned mullet while his world and his integrity collapse around him. I’m sure I’ve seen the same behavior from him in response to another scandal earlier this year. The problem is there are so many they all kind of blur together.
4 Likes
McConnell never had integrity, what might affect him emotionally is the possibility of failure.
3 Likes
Given the likely treason of Donald Trump and the certain treason of those legislators who refuse to investigate him for treason, I like to say that you can be a patriot or you can be a Republican, but you can’t be both. It seems also that you can be a decent person or a Republican, but not both.
3 Likes
They look very, very uncomfortable. Won’t they feel liberated when they realize that people who vote for them don’t even care about this.
4 Likes
Depending on who you ask, that’s exactly the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It’s ridiculous to enshrine “if people try to overthrow the government, they’re totally cool in doing so” in the constitution, but “the government can’t prevent people arming themselves in case such a revolution is pertinent” is, as the logic goes.
1 Like
I already addressed this/your argument in my original post.
You mentioned it, but that’s what the argument would be. Maybe it’s just because I’m an American it seems ridiculous to codify a right of revolution because the situation in which you would be having a revolution implies that the constitution is treated as meaningless to begin with.
1 Like
What about a revolution against an usurper to protect or restore a/the constitution?
While it lacks the force of law, the Declaration of Independence makes abundantly clear that the founders believed everyone has the right of revolution in the event that all other approaches fail. So, why didn’t they put it in the constitution? I can’t speak for them, but I can guess.
-
At first they didn’t all agree that they needed a bill of rights at all, and when they added it they only added negative rights, not positive rights. They forbid the government from infringing rights people already had. Locke’s influence: Government does not have the power to grant rights at all.
-
In light of that, what would be the point of enshrining a right of revolution? If all other avenues have failed, it means the government has already ignored the rules restricting its power, and it would be lunacy to expect that any court would uphold such a right in those circumstances, and if it did, the legislature and executive would ignore the ruling anyway. And if they did, it would mean they’re still following the rules, in which case all other avenues haven’t failed, and so the right of revolution doesn’t apply.
Am I missing something obvious besides “It’s nice to have those words written down in an official document”?
5 Likes
See my previous post.
That’s the whole point about laws, isn’t it?
I think you’re talking about my senator, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, slumped down on the far left of frame there. Johnny’s health hasn’t been great lately, and that may account for his dyspeptic look.
I (very generously) used to think of Isakson as the slightly principled GOP rubber stamp from GA, and our other senator, David Perdue, as the amoral GOP rubber stamp from GA. But at least Perdue quickly denounced Roy Moore’s alleged behavior and urged him to step down if true, something I don’t think Isakson has done yet.
1 Like
I suppose as a statement of values it might make sense, like the preamble of the US constitution. But no, that’s not the point of laws. When you make laws, you expect someone, somewhere to actually enforce them, and (ideally) everyone, everywhere to obey them.
Your previous posts don’t address the underlying level-crossing confusion that putting a right of revolution in a constitution requires. If the conditions necessary to justly invoke a right of revolution are present - if you’ve determined there’s no peaceful way to live under the current government - then the current laws aren’t relevant anymore. You’re going to overthrow and then change them, and the current government isn’t going to pay attention to them either. You’re in “Ned Stark had a piece of paper” territory.
What did the Greek and German constitution writers expect to happen? What circumstance could arise that both meet the requirements to invoke right of revolution, and result in the government agreeing with and - what, not interfering with? - that revolution? If you’re the constitution writer, you’re also in “Never give an order you know won’t be obeyed” territory, since that would weaken the ability of any subsequent future constitution writers to convince people the rules are meaningful.
Note, though, that it does make sense for international law to recognize a right of revolution, because that instructs countries about how to react to revolution in other countries, and in that case it has a chance to actually be obeyed.
2 Likes
I think I addressed that:
I don’t know where you get that from, but that’s where you’re wrong.
The “shoo-ing” motion from both men is indicative of what these men think of us. (go away little people, let us decide whats best for you). SMH.
2 Likes
