Skip to main content

View Diary: The Fantasy of "Government Tyranny" (211 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  There are lawful remedies and recourse. (12+ / 0-)

    I know what you're referring to, but let's set that aside for the moment and say that "a ... government ... claimed the power." A government can't "claim" anything; only a person can do that. Set aside also the fact that "tyranny" is not a count noun; you can't say that [X] is "a tyranny." Let's look at this in real-world terms, viz., exactly how this could happen in reality.

    If Congress, i.e., a majority of the people's (and the states') duly-elected representatives, in both houses, passed a law authorizing and/or requiring that this be done (and, presumably, appropriating the funds to do it, although that's not really relevant here), then either the executive (via veto) or the judiciary (via judicial review and injunctive relief) could put a stop to it. (Of course, a supermajority of Congress could then override the veto, but it would still be subject to judicial review.) Moreover, the people would have an opportunity in the next election to elect a new Congress that would repeal or change the law to make it illegal.

    If the President, the people's duly-elected chief executive, acting under lawful authority granted by Congress, "claimed" the power to do that and actually did it, Congress could pass legislation by veto-proof majority explicitly making it illegal or revoking the authority, and then if the president continues to do it, get an injunction from the courts to stop it and then impeach him. In the alternative, the judiciary could be called upon to find that he lacks the authority under existing law and, assuming the court reaches that conclusion, issue an injunction, then it would again be up to Congress to impeach him if he defies the law. And, as always, it's up to the people to elect a Congress and a President that will act according to the people's will.

    In other words, if Congress passes unconstitutional or "tyrannical" legislation, it's up to the President to veto it, the courts to enjoin its enforcement and/or strike it down, and/or the next Congress to repeal or nullify it (and for the voters to elect a Congress that will do so).

    If a President acts illegally or "tyrannically," it's up to Congress to impeach him or the courts to enjoin the action; if his actions are of questionable legality, it's up to Congress to pass clarifying legislation, and/or the courts to determine whether his actions are legal.

    The point is there is always a lawful and nonviolent way to put a stop to anything we think looks like "tyranny." There is no reason to believe that we need guns or an armed population to oppose or reverse a "claim" by the "government" that it has "the power to imprison or kill anyone it chose without judicial review"

    •  I personally have no idea of how we stop (10+ / 0-)

      Governmental Tyranny.

      Just today i find out that Aaron Sanduskey, a man who helped the Central Valley area of California have medical marijuana dispensaries offer marijuana to the patients who need it - he has been sentenced to ten years in jail.

      Apparently the Constitutional guarantee of states' rights is a dead concept. Big Pharma and Big Prison Industries own the officials we elect to the WH and to Congress.

      Their actions show us  how it's  all One Big  Money Party - regardless of who a person for voted for in the last election, if they had a "D" or an "R" after their name, they were for
      1) keeping marijuana out of the hands of citizens, even in states where the voters approved one or all uses of the plant.
      2) letting the Banks continue to profit from a  "Too Big To Fail" Doctrine, that means we can be foreclosed up illegally, with scant punishment to those doing the foreclosures, etc. But the banks themselves get bailed out, and Bernanke offers them trillions in loans. The fact that the Big Banks receive some 49 cents out of every dollar of profit in the USA proves we are now officially an oligarchy!
      3)Monsanto and its famine seed and crops are legalized, while someone whose goat is giving them unpasteurized milk can watch the Officers of the Court come in and raid their small farm. Why is it okay to have Monsanto monopolize our crops and seeds, with fungal growth and bacteria and mold now invading so many grains we eat, but the ability of an individual to gather up the fruits of their animal husbandry is outlawed?
      I could go on and on, but you get the point. Oh one more thing to point out - SWAT teams  and local militarized police have shot and killed over 400 individuals in the USA in a ten year period - and these were people whose homes were stormed but were a wrong address!! How is it we allow the SWAT teams to tear apart a household, without checking first that they are at the right address!

      Offer your heart some Joy every day of your life, and spread it along to others.

      by Truedelphi on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:03:02 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Don't get what this has to do with tyranny (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Being sentenced to 10 years in prison is not tyranny. I don't agree with the medical marijuana laws either but the tide is turning on that given the legalization of marijuana in other states.

        The issue of SWAT teams -- hmmm, I wonder about those stats. Even if it's true, I don't see how an individual owning even several rifles could fend off a SWAT team. It would make more sense to oppose this through legal means -- working with lawyer, contacting ACLU, contacting legislators, local media.  

        The civil rights, gay rights and women's movements, designed to allow others to reach for power previously grasped only by white men, have made a real difference, and the outlines of 21st century America have emerged. -- Paul West of LA Times

        by LiberalLady on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 04:25:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Being sentenced to ten years (4+ / 0-)

          for doing something that hurts no one at all is damn close to tyranny.  Especially considering that millions of people in the US have the exact same experience.

          Even if it's true, I don't see how an individual owning even several rifles could fend off a SWAT team. It would make more sense to oppose this through legal means -- working with lawyer, contacting ACLU, contacting legislators, local media.
          It is true, and all of those things have been done.  I don't think that more guns will help.  If guns were going to help the situation it would have happened already.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:35:38 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  It seems to me that what you call "tyranny" is (12+ / 0-)

        actually just the legislation and enforcement of laws you don't like or don't agree should be made or enforced, and I'm not sure that's the same thing. More importantly, does the existence of laws you don't like or don't agree with, and the fact that such laws are enforced, by itself and without more, necessitate that you own, carry, or use a gun? Does it necessitate that the population be armed? Does it justify the use of guns to threaten and/or murder elected representatives or officers of the law? Or do we have lawful means of addressing this type of problem without guns?

        I agree that the outright purchase of elected officials (and, by extension, the law) by moneyed interests is the greatest threat to democracy that we face. I just don't know that guns, or an armed population, are the answer to that threat.

        •  Tyranny could happen here (4+ / 0-)

          . Billionaire / Koch brothers' control of Congress + media.
          . Gerrymandered congressional districts giving permanent one party control of the House.
          . Unitary Executive taken to the extreme.

          But ask yourself, what can an armed populous do facing the US military?  Wage a terrorist war as in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan ?  Would we really ever want that here?

          Personally, I'd move to another country.

          Even Democrats can be asses. Look at Rahm Emanuel.

          by Helpless on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:14:25 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Don't forget (5+ / 0-)

            The government can now kill American citizens without warrant or trial now. They can also secretly eavesdrop on any citizen. And THAT'S with the liberals in charge.

            •  since when? (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              artmartin, mmacdDE
              Don't forget The government can now kill American citizens without warrant or trial now.
              the drones have only been used in combat areas, where the gov't has always had the authority to kill people, without due process.  

              interestingly enough, this was a big part of the reason for instituting the estate tax:

              . Billionaire / Koch brothers' control of Congress + media.
              congress recognized that allowing families to accumulate vast fortunes, handed down intact, potentially created the ability to buy the gov't, thus giving the US it's own form of aristocracy. limiting those inherited fortunes, by taxing them, was one means of forestalling that. revenue wise, it only affects very few (1%) estates.
              •  Since now (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dewley notid

                See this

                And I do not see Kocks controlling the senate or WH or media for that matter.

              •  The drones (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                dewley notid

                are flying over US airspace as we speak. By 2015 they will be in full force.

                "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

                by rocksout on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:03:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I haven't heard of a single (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  US citizen being targeted violently by any drone within US borders.  That SURVEILLANCE drones may be flying is pretty much a moot point because we have cameras pointed at us all the time, have a spy satellite system that would blow your mind in its tracking capabilities, police frequently fly helicopters and aircraft over us watching for violations of traffic issues.  If drones are being used over our airspace for surveillance in criminal matters I don't see this as an issue.  As long as they are unarmed I see them simply as a more efficient means of doing exactly what our law enforcement and intelligence communities have been doing for years.  My only problem would be if they started falling out of the sky on top of people because of equipment malfunction or operator errors.  The same thing though could happen with a police helicopter or aircraft.  

                  This stuff borders on CT.

                  "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

                  by artmartin on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 09:35:55 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Apparently giving up personal freedom (0+ / 0-)

                    is of no consequence to you. Do you work for the aero space industry? It's only CT if it's a theory. The drones ARE patrolling.

                    "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

                    by rocksout on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 10:33:36 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Oh give me a break (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      GDbot, bernardpliers

                      I'm not commenting on the spying.  What I'm commenting on is this huge inference the lot of you have that these drones will somehow be used against us militarily like they are in foreign countries against combatants.  That is the CT.  That suggestion is there in every damned comment about the use of drones here.  The word "surveillance" is never used.  It's always "the drones are already being used over our cities" right after some passage that talks about their military use overseas.  If you want to talk about surveillance then let's talk about the use of police helicopters, drug informants, red light cameras, too.  They are all just tools just as a SURVEILLANCE drone is.  Until they go into our skies with Hellfire missiles I view them the same way I do when I hear a police chopper in the middle of the night looking through my neighborhood, a mix of good and a small potential for bad.  

                      I am concerned about police abuse.  I live in Joe Arpaio's county for gosh sakes but drones?  That's the least of my concern.  One of Joe's racist goons driving around with a gun scares me a whole lot more.  Keep this shit in perspective please.

                      "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

                      by artmartin on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:17:34 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Back in the Clinton Administration (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:

                    you had to get permission from the Attorney General to image the USA with a spy satellite.   Why do I think that control no longer exists?

                    As they say, if you throw a frog into hot water, he will jump out.   If you put him in lukewarm water and gradually raise the heat, you can boil him to death.

                    •  yeah but you need no (0+ / 0-)

                      such permission for the local police to fly over your home in a helicopter and the cost to do so and the potential damage and injury if one of those go down is exponentially higher than a drone failure.  The use of drones for police surveillance is no more concern than current surveillance tactics and gear.  Arming them and firing on civilians is.  Inferring that is the next step is CT just as the assumption that smoking pot is going to lead us all to heroin.

                      "A celibate clergy is an especially good idea, because it tends to suppress any hereditary propensity toward fanaticism." -- Carl Sagan

                      by artmartin on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 12:21:29 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  I disagree. Past tyrants were constrained by (0+ / 0-)

                        the limited number of eyeballs they could deploy to spy on their subjects.  

                        The massive surveillance /cameras/recording server networks the government is deploying look an awful lot like the Panopticon that Michael Foucault spoke of -- as a means to psychologically coerce people into becoming slaves by the threat of constant secret surveillance.


                        That is not a prison that holds criminals --that is making the whole world into a prison.

                        The fact that the NRA does not even recognize that danger shows what a fraud Wayne LaPierre is.

        •  And how is that different from (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          other examples of government tyranny?  Governments make laws to enforce tyranny.  Honestly, pointing out that we live in a police state already, which I really believe, is the best argument against the idea that guns are of use against a modern tyranny.  If guns prevented tyranny then we wouldn't be where we are now.

          The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

          by AoT on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:38:00 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  See, I'm not sure that what you're describing (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            radarlady, JerryNA, Laconic Lib

            is an "example of government tyranny" in the first instance. [That's assuming that the phrase "government tyranny" has any meaning at all, and is something that one can find "examples" of.] What you're describing is the legislation and enforcement of one law that you personally don't like or don't agree with, but that without more is not "tyranny."

            It's only "tyranny" if it is arbitrary, e.g., if it's done by a governmental entity in which you have no representation and against which you have no lawful recourse, one that is unelected and unaccountable to itself, to the law or to its constituents. If the law that you don't like or don't agree with was lawfully passed by a duly-elected legislature with majority support, where you had the opportunity to vote for whomever would represent you in that debate, that's not tyranny. That's just you not liking or agreeing with that result.

            •  I have no lawful recourse (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rocksout, dewley notid

              to the federal government arresting me for my possession of medical marijuana.  Sure, the people in general have recourse, but I sure as hell don't.  And as for arbitrary, marijuana is a schedule one drug, which means that it is legally considered both to be highly addictive and to have no medical value, both of which are objectively untrue.  That's arbitrary.  Of course, there is a theoretical ability to eventually change the laws around marijuana, but tell the people who have already wasted years and years in jail about their legal recourse.  Not to mention the fact that it fall more on communities of color.  Case in point the discrepancy between crack and cocaine sentencing.

              But all of this is beside your point.  Either guns can help prevent tyranny or they can't.  If we have tyranny already then guns don't work.  If we don't have tyranny then guns still probably don't work.

              The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

              by AoT on Wed Jan 09, 2013 at 05:57:29 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  If your constitutional rights are being violated (8+ / 0-)

                you have the right to sue the federal government. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. You also have the right to vote for a legislature that will make the laws you want, and keep voting until you get your way. That is your lawful recourse. If your § 1983 claim is dismissed, or the rest of the country doesn't vote for the things you want, that is not tyranny. Neither is it arbitrary. Freedom is not autonomy, and living in a free country doesn't mean that there can't be any laws that you don't like or else you're a victim of "tyranny."

                •  Some people think being forced to ... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  register automobiles is tyranny.  I'm not sure how a lunatic with an assault rifle is going to do anything but try and enforce yet another tyranny.  I simply don't trust the "militias" or individuals who meet with their buddies on weekends to play soldier to be an improvement over elected government, no matter how corrupt.  Remember the French Revolution? The Bolsheviks?  Be careful what you wish for - the revolution may not turn out as you expect!  

                  •  I fully agree there (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Desert Scientist

                    And really, that's partially my point.  These people don't care about liberty and tyranny, they care about their ability to do whatever they want.  Because if they did care about liberty they'd bo doing something other than just hoarding guns.

                    The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                    by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:13:04 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

              •  Bear in mind that (7+ / 0-)

                I agree marijuana should be legal. But the fact that it isn't (yet) does not indicate to me that we are living in a state of "tyranny." It simply indicates that the law needs to change, which it can, and ultimately will, and not because citizens have guns.

                •  A look at the size of our prison population (0+ / 0-)

                  says otherwise to me.

                  The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                  by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 09:11:56 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So the size of our prison population proves (0+ / 0-)

                    that the United States of America is, at its core and in its entirety, an oppressive and brutal totalitarian state, and its 311+ million people are all living in a state of tyranny? The U.S. is the functional equivalent of the Third Reich, the Soviet Union, the Khmer Rouge, or any other historical dystopia? If not, then what exactly is it that you "believe otherwise"?

                    Bear in mind that there is no federal penal code; there are some federal crimes and federal prisons, but general criminal statutes, prosecution and incarceration are almost exclusively a state matter. There are about 200,000 federal prisoners in the United States. That's about 0.6% of the population. By comparison, there are ten times as many people (over 2 million) in state prisons and local jails. In other words, it's the individual states and local municipalities, not the United States government, that have put over 90% of these people in prison.

                    How does that affect the assessment? Are all 50 states brutal totalitarian regimes too? Or is the United States a brutal totalitarian regime because it allows the states to do this and refuses to set these people free?

                    The fact that we have such a large prison population could mean any number of things. It could mean that we have a very high crime rate. It could mean that Americans are more prone to commit crimes than people in other countries, for any number of subsidiary reasons. It could mean that our criminal statutes are more restrictive than those in other countries, meaning more things are illegal here than elsewhere, or more crimes are classified as felonies here than elsewhere. It could mean that we mete out longer sentences for similar offenses. It could mean that our criminal justice system makes it too easy to prosecute and convict the accused. It could mean, alternatively, that our criminal justice system is so lenient, and makes it so difficult to prosecute and convict the accused, because it is so heavily weighted toward protecting their rights and puts the entire burden of proof on the state, that our people are less risk-averse when it comes to criminal behavior and more likely to think they can get away with it, avoid arrest, avoid prosecution, or "get off on a technicality."

                    I'm not saying any of these are true or that any of these are the sole reason. All I'm saying is that the fact of a large prison population, by itself and without more, is not proof of the existence of a state of "tyranny" analogous to that of the Nazis, the Soviets, or anyone else. It's too easy to just chalk it up to "tyranny" and thereby avoid asking the more important questions, viz., why is it so, and what do we do about it?

                    We have a criminal justice system which is, like all others, less than perfect. But we do have a criminal justice system. We also have a representative democracy that provides us with the opportunity, through the law and the political process, to change that system for the better, and with lawful recourse against it should it fail to live up to our nation's ideals of liberty and justice. And all that without any need for an armed citizenry.

                    •  There are no states where (0+ / 0-)

                      everyone lives under tyranny, and to hold to that standard means that even Nazi Germany wasn't tyranny.  It isn't an either/or situation, it's degrees.  Certainly, there are instances of pretty horrible systems, but even in those systems there are plenty of people who have it pretty damn good.

                      And the fact that states are doing it doesn't make a whit of difference.  That's part of how a federal system works.  But we have a system that systematically oppresses a huge chunk of our population:  That's what tyranny is.

                      The revolution will not be televised. But it will be blogged, a lot. Probably more so than is necessary.

                      by AoT on Fri Jan 11, 2013 at 11:29:19 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  What is your definition of (0+ / 0-)

                        "systematic oppression"?

                        What is the objective organizing principle that distinguishes "oppression" from law?

                        What is the objective organizing principle that distinguishes "oppression" that is "systematic" from that which is not systematic, or is merely anecdotal?

                        What is the objective organizing principle that distinguishes "systematic oppression" from the mere existence of a criminal justice system?

                        [I mean these questions to be neither ironic nor rhetorical. I am actually very interested in your answers. Thanks.]

                      •  One more thing: (0+ / 0-)

                        Which specific segment of the population is being "systematically oppressed"? What objective characteristics distinguish those who are being "systematically oppressed" from those who are not? Roughly what percentage of the U.S. population is in the former category?

                        Thanks again.

            •  That idea breaks down when you have 310 Million (4+ / 0-)

              people represented by 450 men who have to get on the phone and beg for money from 400 billionaires every day.

              Or do you think the $3 BILLION spent in the election just past was spent to ensure good government for the little people?

              How many people did a Congressman represent in 1790?  How many today?

              •  Money is the problem. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                artmartin, JerryNA

                Are guns the solution?

                •  Well, some people argue for high explosives (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  stormicats, dewley notid, JerryNA

                  As I noted below, there are MANY ways to protect the Constitution and our freedom.   But the people clinging to their guns are arguing nothing more than what part of the Left was arguing in the 1960s.   In both cases because they have lost faith in the government.

                  When the government ended the Vietnam war, enacted civil rights for blacks and halted the abuses (domestic spying, etc) of the FBI and the Army,  the violent left quickly dried up and disappeared.  

                  I think the question  of government overreach should be publicly discussed and it should be pointed out that there are many controls that are more effective --and active --than the NRA.  I also think a number of reforms that I suggested below would give reassurance to some of the opposition.  I think it should be pointed out that the NRA did nothing to oppose Cheney.   I think the massive unemployment problem should be fixed quickly.

                  Democrats have really fallen down on the job when it comes to pointing out how government can be a force for good -- whereas the billionaires so favored by the Libertarians have amply shown that they feel no obligation for their fellow countrymen.  

                  If you want people to trust government then you need to have the government make noticable improvements in people's lives when you are in power.

                •  The man who started the whole Assault Rifle craze (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  GDbot, Laconic Lib

                  was a Stanford English  major and banker named Mel Tappan.  Back during the high inflation of the Jimmy Carter administration.  Mel Argued that the economy was going to collapse from high federal debt and entitlement obligations (Social Security, Medicare,etc.)   Argued that a person should move to a small town 400 miles from any large city and set up a self-sufficent farm to survive the ensuing chaos.

                  This was during a period of much higher homicide rates in our cities.   Plus large areas of several cities  had been burned down during the civil rights riots/Martin Luther King assassination.   Plus there was that nuclear war/Cuban Missile Crisis/fallout shelter craze.

                  Which, of course, led to the need for guns.   Lots of guns. To deal with the hordes of starving urban cannibal hordes
                  fleeing to the countryside.
                  Plus a year's supply of beans, bullets, bandaids and goats.
                  Even among the hippies who fled to the same patch of Oregon to escape the Impending Nixon Dictatorship.

                  Read "Tappan on Survival".  Wild craziness.  Opens with a quote from Yeats' "Second Coming":

                   "Turning and turning in the widening gyre
                      The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
                      Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
                      Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
                      The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
                      The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
                      The best lack all conviction, while the worst
                      Are full of passionate intensity."

                  •  A friend's father bought into that, hook, line, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    radarlady, artmartin, JerryNA

                    ... and sinker.

                    One of the things he did, as a result, was to bury a number of 50 gallon drums of gasoline in the yard. This almost caused a problem a few years ago. He had a stroke that left him bed-ridden and requiring positive air pressure for breathing. His wife decided to have a first-floor addition put on the house for his bedroom, with direct outside access to make it easier on the varying visiting caregivers - the creaky old, narrow stairs to the 2nd floor weren't kind to anyone.

                    Alas, he hadn't told anyone about the gasoline, and was unable to speak due to the stroke, which led to a very scary day (though, luckily, an uneventful one) for the backhoe operator who discovered them.

                •  Guns are way more of a problem than a solution. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  "Onward through the fog!" - Oat Willie

                  by rocksout on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:06:43 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Now it's about 460K/district; in the past... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                In 1900 population was 76M and number of districts was 357, so a bit over 210K/district.  In 1789 US population was 3.6M and 59 seats in the House, or about 60K/seat.

                Data from



                Real plastic here; none of that new synthetic stuff made from chicken feathers. By the morning of 9/12/2001 the people of NYC had won the War on Terror.

                by triplepoint on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 05:26:41 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  This is a problem (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                that needs to be addressed.  Off the top of my head,  in 1790, Congressmen had to represent around 25,ooo citizens, now it's much closer to a million.  How can they, as a practical matter, have adequate knowledge of their electorate to properly represent them?  

                We can have democracy in this country, or we can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both. Louis Brandeis

                by Ohkwai on Thu Jan 10, 2013 at 08:24:10 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  nothing. (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        skwimmer, mmacdDE, artmartin, JerryNA
        Don't get what this has to do with tyranny
        it has to do with laws this poster doesn't like, being enforced, in a manner this poster doesn't like them to be.

        congress' authority, under the commerce clause, is well established judicially. so is congress' authority under the supremacy clause. the supremacy clause will, almost always, trump "state's rights", under the 10th amendment. again, the poster doesn't like it, but it hardly qualifies as "tyranny".

        get a majority of voters, to vote into congress representatives who agree with you, and get the federal laws changed. that's called "representative democracy".

    •  congress doesn't even have to go as far as (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      radical simplicity, artmartin

      impeachment, they could simply pass legistation not allowing funds to be spent on the activity. the activity would have to stop. or, the president could take the "executive order" approach to continue it, asserting that congress usurped its authority, claiming powers specifically designated to the executive branch (commander-in-chief) as its own. not sure how that would fare in court though.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site