You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #73: The move you perhaps are missing is that some laws are void if they [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Land Shark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Dec-04-08 10:03 PM
Response to Reply #70
73. The move you perhaps are missing is that some laws are void if they
violate inalienable rights or are oppressive or tyrannical. Yes, there are risks in the nature of civil disobedience if a government presses enforcement.

But there's always one thing we can withhold, or two, even if we don't choose civil disobedience of some sort. And that's we can withhold our respect, and we can withhold our enthusiasm.

I may have misinterpreted you or another in this thread, perhaps, but if I did it was because I detect an overbreadth or enthusiasm, even if limited enthusiasm, for taking what you've now called an attenuated power system, and pushing for something I see as another step in the direction of greater attenuation (if it happens), perhaps even a giant leap.

If I felt like logic and constitutional construction required such a result, then I'd reluctantly follow (or withhold my respect, or wash my hands of it in some semi-public manner). But it's a mystery to me how any body could keep their enthusiasm or energy up for defending this type of congressional power to second guess the election for president. I don't begrudge you a right to an opinion, I just can't see how I myself could ever have energy for that.

Here we've got "sworn" representatives, who may purport to enforce the constitution against the people, but never WARNED THEM about a huge potentially no-good election? Our "representatives" holding our power, in trust, couldn't see fit to warn us of issues they clearly knew about (there was a senate resolution on the subject, for example)?

I guess I can see why people could get extremely pissed off at Congress. Enormously so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC