Thanks, Obama.
Ego te absolvo, dude. Ego non [the idiot at Addicting Info who called it “treason” in the linked story] absolvo. :mad:
He even called Tancredo’s remarks “seditious” later on in the article, so I know he knows what sedition is. :smack:
ETA: or at least that sedition is a thing.
I almost wish the Republicans would launch an armed rebellion against Obama.
It would mark the end of Republican legitimacy for all time and seal their legacy in the history books alongside the Confederates and the Bund.
Actually, more like Pinochet or Franco, because we’d win. The only way there’s ever a right-wing rebellion is if the left tries to use extraconstitutional means to guarantee a permanent majority. Before you go to send the army to put down a rebellion in that situation, you should probably be aware of the political leanings of the army. And the fact that their oath is not to the President. It’s to the Constitution.
I wasn’t aware that the US Army had political leanings – if you do, please share, with cite. Or have you been watching Seven Days in May too much recently?
And it’s precisely because the armed services swear to uphold the constitution – and because the constitution is not in any danger of violation – that we don’t live in fear of military coups.
I’m pretty sure the Constitution does not allow an armed overthrow of the government.
Not right now, no. As long as our government stays at least within a stone’s throw of compliance with the Constitution, there will be no armed rebellions.
And both of those situation sure worked out well, didn’t they?
When, and/or where (ya know, it the document itself), does the Constitution allow an armed overthrow of the government?
CMC fnord!
So you’re saying history will recall the Republicans as a gang of ultranationalist thugs who overthrew a lawfully elected government through violence, maintained their rule through terror, and executed thousands of innocent people for speaking against the government or insisting on their basic human rights?
…I’m OK with that. Godspeed!
Quite a bit in there about *quelling *rebellions, though.
adaher, are you fucking crazy?
That’s in the Declaration. By it’s nature, an armed rebellion isn’t lawful. But it is the only option when rule of law no longer exists.
Again, we are nowhere near that point, which is why there is no armed rebellion. And to address Smapti, a lawfully elected government does not have license to violate the law. THe purpose of the 2nd amendment, or one of it’s purposes, is to provide a remedy if the government goes rogue. Even if it goes rogue with the support of 51% of the people, it’s still going rogue.
Nearly all the founders made reference to the need for governments to be overthrown when they no longer have the legitimacy to govern.
Let’s say that the President, tired of obstruction, says he will rule by decree for the remainder of his term.
What is the proper response to such an act?
Impeachment.
Ask your buddies in Ferguson how that worked out.
Look at this and explain how you’d win.
I don’t know, but I would assume the Republicans would stand up for a round of relieved applause - finally they’d have somebody of Putin’s calibre in charge, like they’ve been clamouring for !
The President refuses to leave office. I doubt once the choice to rule by decree was made, the President would just let Congress remove him from office.
My point is that I’m not engaging in crazy talk here. I’ve made it clear Tancredo is a nut, and that no one is actually contemplating armed rebellion. I just object to the denigration of “Second amendment solutions” since that’s part of the purpose of the 2nd amendment.
I don’t remember who it was that said, government should fear the people, the people should not fear the government. The government should damn well be aware of an armed populace. I don’t mind at all if it makes the government a little paranoid. If they think an armed rebellion might occur over a maybe not so legal executive order, then they won’t dare try a blatantly illegal executive order.
Thank you, adaher! How often does the Stupid Republican Idea of the Day come from one of our own?
Who do you imagine is at this point listening to the impeached and convicted ex-president who no longer has any legal authority over any branch of the government?
Cite for any judicial interpretation of the 2nd Amendment being meant to provide for an armed insurrection against the government?
I repeat; ask your friends in Ferguson how that worked out for them.