Under the US Constitution...

[The Trump Administration]

I was here under the moniker "Solitary" for several years. I changed my moniker, as people often do. No biggie.

So my recollection was accurate. So noted. Did you not admit you lied about being "Solitary" when inquiries were made regarding your "other" identity?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

Rule of law isn’t some disposable component of democracy; it’s the foundation upon which democracy stands.

Then if the foundation has already crumbled there is no democracy and no law, only the intention to rebuild.

And yet, here you are, twisting it into a justification for breaking the system entirely.

If this breaks the system, the the system must be broken. The people have spoken. Their rights have been abused. If redress would shatter the government then the government needs shattering.

You’re not protecting the rule of law; you’re assaulting it under the guise of necessity. Because, make no mistake, when you treat laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped at will, you’ve already replaced the rule of law with the rule of power.

Yes, but like war one side can unilaterally change the game; and when the deep state used laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped they already replace the rule of the law with the rule of power.

I am saying that the game is currently "rule of power" and that democracy has given the free people of the united states one last chance at restoring rule of law, but that can only be done by using power to punish the aggressors. When those who initiated the abuse of the law through lawfare and deception pay, and when those who were fooled by them choose to leave them to their fate; then we will have peace and the rule of law again.

And frankly, the idea that your brand of chaos is preferable to "certain fascism" is as laughable as it is tragic.

So you prefer fascism, noted.

But let’s take your argument at face value. You claim this is all to save the "fabric of the country" -- by tearing it.

Risk tearing it. Risk is not certainty.

Do you hear yourself? You’re not just gambling with democracy; you’re throwing the dice while lighting the table on fire and calling it strategy. And the people you claim to protect? They’ll be the ones choking on the ashes of your so-called plan.

More like gambling with unity, but if that unity is an illusion better to remove the object of conflict (the federal government) from the playing field.

And for the "rest of humanity" -- the ones who, in your fever dream, benefit from watching this country tear itself apart -- don’t kid yourself. The world doesn’t need America reduced to a smoking ruin of its principles.

It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a hell of a lot better than a thousand years of digital fascism where humanity are controlled by carefully tailored diet of state engineered information.

The deep state has consistently attacked any nation that refused their currency and "defense" demands. They see the whole world as their domain, not just the USA.

It needs America to stand firm, to prove that liberty and democracy can endure, even when tested by the likes of you and your reckless experiments.

Before exporting liberty we might want to have some ourselves. This is not a free country, not compared to others and not compared to the dawn of the 20th century USA.

So no, Liberty, your "plan" is neither noble nor necessary. It’s the desperate justification of someone who’s mistaken nihilism for strategy. And when the history books recount this era, they won’t remember you as a defender of liberty -- they’ll remember you as one of its most reckless saboteurs.

We'll see. "You're on the wrong side of history" is significantly more amusing as of late.

First, your claim that Congress paying dismissed bureaucrats amounts to sedition is a masterpiece of legal fiction.

Read more carefully.

Second, this nonsense about a "second executive branch" is a strawman so flimsy it collapses under the weight of its own absurdity.

If there is only one executive branch then Trump will be its elected chief. Dictator within that domain is the job description.

Bureaucrats aren’t a rogue army; they’re public servants operating under laws passed by Congress

I disagree.

upheld by the courts, and accountable to the American people.

Through what mechanism are they accountable to the American people?

See I have a theory about that. Something about elections.

If their authority is "unconstitutional," then every regulation, every policy, and every safeguard enacted over decades would be as well.

That sentence sent a warm tingle down my spine. Keep going.

Actually I'm saying their authority to enforce the laws passed by congress derives from POTUS and POTUS alone. With tyrannical presidents their tyranny could be argued to be constitutional as they were presumed to merely be carrying out the will of POTUS.

The only check on their actions would be the courts in that case.

If however POTUS has explicitly denounced them as his agents vested with his authority (the authority of the executive branch), they have nothing. They are like Jack Smith, random citizens pretending to be acting under color of law.

In that case anyone who suggests they have independent authority simply because congress has passed laws is supporting a seditious conspiracy. It would then be well within the president's right and duty to quell the insurrection by any means.

And, of course, that IS what you are saying, you guys on the right ever so foolishly equate 'government' with 'socialism', the right's favorite boogeyman when all arguments are failing. What you’re proposing isn’t clarity -- it’s anarchy, it's chaos.

Considering that you can't figure out that "10% (of the money) for the vice president" is corruption I don't think you'd do well debating the ethics of government in general.

And invoking the Insurrection Act? Oh, that’s rich. You’re suggesting that checks and balances -- the very system the Founders designed

The founders did not design the deep state. They had no concept of a legitimate arm of the government beyond the power of the president and congress. They designed no check to protect such an illegitimate arm of pretenders.

Finally, dragging Trump’s criminal indictments into this as though they’re remotely comparable is the rhetorical equivalent of a desperate Hail Mary.

Nothing you could possibly say will ever get me to stop comparing circumstances separated by time, space, and other details.

Honest rational people are interested in the truth and the truth is universally consistent. If your principles don't survive a comparison they're false.

What you’re really saying is, "If we can’t win, we’ll burn it all down."

Crude but accurate. The very spirit that founded the nation.

Here it is in the opposite of "crude":
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They chose to create rule of law using a new government rather than suffer under the false pretense of rule of law offered by the government of the UK.

And that, Liberty, isn’t defending the Constitution -- it’s betraying it.

No, heroes would rather burn than be used for evil. If all that the future holds is for the constitution to be an empty symbol which people fear to try and read and understand for themselves without a tech-priest (lawyer) around to tell them what it "really" means, that is a fate worse than death.

Better to be a noble prototype that ultimately failed than a twisted relic for authoritarian liars.

 

[The Trump Administration]

The very spirit that founded the nation.

Better to be a noble prototype that ultimately failed than a twisted relic for authoritarian liars.

​

 

[Publius]

Then if the foundation has already crumbled there is no democracy and no law, only the intention to rebuild.

If. But there is no 'if' that has been realized.

If this breaks the system, the the system must be broken. The people have spoken. Their rights have been abused. If redress would shatter the government then the government needs shattering.

so, if I bomb your house, then your logic says, the house must be broken. Nice logic,
People have spoken? A small majority and a very strong minority, both have spoken. No rights have been abused.
You're not getting the message, you're calling for the destruction of the American Government, that's anarchy, subversion, treason.
The governmeent does not need shattering, you are deluded.

Yes, but like war one side can unilaterally change the game; and when the deep state used laws as tools to be bent, stretched, and snapped they already replace the rule of the law with the rule of power.

I am saying that the game is currently "rule of power" and that democracy has given the free people of the united states one last chance at restoring rule of law, but that can only be done by using power to punish the aggressors. When those who initiated the abuse of the law through lawfare and deception pay, and when those who were fooled by them choose to leave them to their fate; then we will have peace and the rule of law again.

Rule of law already exists. Restoration is a moot point. Trump tried to break the law, but he got caught.

So you prefer fascism, noted.

Now you are making shit up.

Risk tearing it. Risk is not certainty.



More like gambling with unity, but if that unity is an illusion better to remove the object of conflict (the federal government) from the playing field.

You're deluded.

It wouldn't be ideal, but it would be a hell of a lot better than a thousand years of digital fascism where humanity are controlled by carefully tailored diet of state engineered information.

Pure delusion, the country doesn't need tearing down. You're talking nonsense.

The deep state has consistently attacked any nation that refused their currency and "defense" demands. They see the whole world as their domain, not just the USA.

your mind is a bucket of slogans and thought-terminating cliches. Snap out of it, you've been Trumped.

Before exporting liberty we might want to have some ourselves. This is not a free country, not compared to others and not compared to the dawn of the 20th century USA.

You have plenty of freedom. I wouldn't complain, you could be in Russia, or China, or places like that.

We'll see. "You're on the wrong side of history" is significantly more amusing as of late.

Your nihilism is the wrong side of history. Flatter yourself all you want, it's self-puffery, a sophomoric argument.

Read more carefully.

I'm not going to repeat myself.

If there is only one executive branch then Trump will be its elected chief. Dictator within that domain is the job description.

You're deluded. But, feel free to prove it.

I disagree.

Of course you disagree, delusion never agrees.

Through what mechanism are they accountable to the American people?

Democracy, remember? It's not perfect, but all the other systems are worse.

See I have a theory about that. Something about elections.

You have a theory? Wonderful.

That sentence sent a warm tingle down my spine. Keep going.

Actually I'm saying their authority to enforce the laws passed by congress derives from POTUS and POTUS alone. With tyrannical presidents their tyranny could be argued to be constitutional as they were presumed to merely be carrying out the will of POTUS.

The only check on their actions would be the courts in that case.

If however POTUS has explicitly denounced them as his agents vested with his authority (the authority of the executive branch), they have nothing. They are like Jack Smith, random citizens pretending to be acting under color of law.

In that case anyone who suggests they have independent authority simply because congress has passed laws is supporting a seditious conspiracy. It would then be well within the president's right and duty to quell the insurrection by any means.

Your claim that Jack Smith is a "random citizen pretending to act under color of law" is patently false and betrays either ignorance of or willful disregard for the law. Jack Smith is a Special Counsel appointed under federal statute (28 C.F.R. § 600.1) by the Attorney General of the United States, a position established by the Constitution and empowered by Congress to oversee criminal prosecutions. His appointment and authority are firmly grounded in the law and carry the full weight of the Justice Department, case law and the law itself, supports this, going back quite a few years.

Smith’s role is not a rogue exercise of power but a lawful execution of his mandate to investigate and prosecute specific criminal conduct. The notion that his actions are "pretending to act under color of law" is baseless. To claim otherwise ignores both his legal authority and the checks in place, including judicial oversight, that ensure his work adheres to the Constitution and federal statutes.

So, no, Liberty, Jack Smith isn’t a "random citizen" any more than a federal judge or an FBI agent is. He’s a duly appointed officer of the law, acting within his prescribed duties. Pretending otherwise doesn’t debunk his authority; it merely highlights your inability to confront the facts.

Let me remind you of a fundamental truth: the authority of executive agencies doesn’t "derive from POTUS and POTUS alone." It derives from the Constitution itself, through laws enacted by Congress, which the president is obligated to faithfully execute -- not rewrite, ignore, or selectively "denounce."

Your claim that the president can unilaterally strip agencies or individuals of their authority by "denouncing" them is as absurd as it is dangerous. Executive agencies are not mere extensions of the president's will; they are bound by the statutes that created them and the oversight mechanisms built into our system of checks and balances. Congress grants their authority, the courts interpret it, and the president oversees -- not owns -- it.

And calling lawful operations "seditious conspiracy" simply because they’re inconvenient to your preferred leader is breathtakingly authoritarian. You’re essentially arguing that anyone enforcing the law without the president’s personal blessing is committing sedition. That’s not constitutional governance; that’s the delusion of a would-be autocrat.

Finally, invoking the right to "quell insurrection by any means" against those enforcing congressionally mandated laws is a chilling embrace of tyranny. If you’re worried about seditious conspiracies, Liberty, you might want to take a hard look in the mirror. Because what you’re advocating isn’t preserving the Constitution -- it’s shredding it to serve one man’s whims.

Considering that you can't figure out that "10% (of the money) for the vice president" is corruption I don't think you'd do well debating the ethics of government in general.

It's only corruption of Biden agreed to it, and recieved it. Since you have no proof of it, one man's fantasizing about corrupting Joe Biden doesn't equal Joe Biden being corrupt.
Tell me, Liberty, are you really that stupid?

Honest rational people are interested in the truth and the truth is universally consistent. If your principles don't survive a comparison they're false.

'Honest rational people' are weasel words. You are not the arbiter of 'honest rational people' nor do you speak for them, nor do you belong in that group, you speak only for yourself, so knock it off.

Crude but accurate. The very spirit that founded the nation.

With one significant, very significant, difference, This is 2024, not 1776.

Here it is in the opposite of "crude":
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

They chose to create rule of law using a new government rather than suffer under the false pretense of rule of law offered by the government of the UK.

Yeah, nice history. But, once again, it's not 1776, so snap out of your fever dream.

No, heroes would rather burn than be used for evil. If all that the future holds is for the constitution to be an empty symbol which people fear to try and read and understand for themselves without a tech-priest (lawyer) around to tell them what it "really" means, that is a fate worse than death.

Better to be a noble prototype that ultimately failed than a twisted relic for authoritarian liars.

Yechhhh. The stench of your self-righteous indignation masquerading as nobility, that your verbiage reeks of it from top to bottom is nauseating. What, you didn't get the memo? Someone in the room has BO and it's you. This isn’t heroism -- it’s performative nihilism wrapped in florid language. All this high-falutin "burning for evil" and "noble prototypes," lingo is phony baloney. Bingo! You're a phony! So, let’s strip away the veneer: what you’re really advocating is tearing down a system you neither understand nor care to engage with, all in the name of some deluded, grandiose crusade.

The Constitution isn’t some "twisted relic," and it doesn’t need your self-appointed martyrdom to endure. It is, and always has been, a living framework -- complex, imperfect, but resilient -- designed to govern a nation of laws, not the whims of self-proclaimed "heroes" who think they know better than centuries of legal scholarship and democratic practice. Your disdain for lawyers interpreting the law, the very professionals tasked with ensuring its consistent application, only underscores your fundamental misunderstanding of how constitutional governance works.

This isn’t about preserving liberty or defending the Constitution. It’s about indulging your fantasy of noble rebellion, even if it means leaving chaos in your wake. But here’s the truth, Liberty: the Constitution isn’t fragile -- it’s stronger than your misguided crusade. And history will remember your so-called "heroism" for what it really is: self-indulgent destruction masquerading as principle

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

so, if I bomb your house, then your logic says, the house must be broken. Nice logic,

It's more like "if you bomb our house, then the house is broken" and yea that's about it. Like I'm not going to stop trying to shoot you with a shutgun after you do that for the sake of the house since you are the greater threat to the house.

Your claim that Jack Smith is a "random citizen pretending to act under color of law" is patently false and betrays either ignorance of or willful disregard for the law. Jack Smith is a Special Counsel appointed under federal statute (28 C.F.R. § 600.1) by the Attorney General of the United States, a position established by the Constitution and empowered by Congress to oversee criminal prosecutions. His appointment and authority are firmly grounded in the law and carry the full weight of the Justice Department, case law and the law itself, supports this, going back quite a few years.

Judge disagrees, get around that?

It's only corruption of Biden agreed to it, and recieved it.

Well payment was received and public policy was delivered so....

Since you have no proof of it, one man's fantasizing about corrupting Joe Biden doesn't equal Joe Biden being corrupt.
Tell me, Liberty, are you really that stupid?

I sense your patience is wearing thin. Do your vacuous walls of text normally wear someone down by now?

With one significant, very significant, difference, This is 2024, not 1776.

Truth is eternal. If your progress is progressing to a society where securing liberty is not the overriding justification for government, then call me old fashioned because I'll fight that as I have. Seems I and 76 million allies won the battle if not the war.

Yeah, nice history. But, once again, it's not 1776, so snap out of your fever dream.

I think it was the people who thought Joseph Biden was sharp as a tac and nobody would vote for orange Hitler who need the wake-up call.

Yechhhh. The stench of your self-righteous indignation masquerading as nobility, that your verbiage reeks of it from top to bottom is nauseating. What, you didn't get the memo? Someone in the room has BO and it's you. This isn’t heroism -- it’s performative nihilism wrapped in florid language. All this high-falutin "burning for evil" and "noble prototypes," lingo is phony baloney. Bingo! You're a phony! So, let’s strip away the veneer: what you’re really advocating is tearing down a system you neither understand nor care to engage with, all in the name of some deluded, grandiose crusade.

Cry me a river? I didn't see anything in that entire paragraph that warrants the slightest consideration. It is the most verbose way to say "nah uh you're stupid" that I've seen in a long long time.

The Constitution isn’t some "twisted relic,"

When the deep state is running things it is.

and it doesn’t need your self-appointed martyrdom to endure. It is, and always has been, a living framework

Well it can "live" through a few recess appointments if that's what it takes to get the job done.

-- complex, imperfect, but resilient -- designed to govern a nation of laws, not the whims of self-proclaimed "heroes" who think they know better than centuries of legal scholarship and democratic practice.

You talking about Alvin Bragg or Leticia James?

Your disdain for lawyers interpreting the law

I have disdain for liars, especially the ones who pose as experts.

the very professionals tasked with ensuring its consistent application, only underscores your fundamental misunderstanding of how constitutional governance works.

Your idea of the constitution: listen to the lawyers, but not the ones the 65 project wants to disbar
My idea of the constitution: What the words of the piece of paper mean in the English language.

Nah I'm good.

This isn’t about preserving liberty or defending the Constitution. It’s about indulging your fantasy of noble rebellion

Who says you can't have both?

even if it means leaving chaos in your wake.

There are things much worse than chaos. Chaos is potential. The worst thing that could come out of chaos is ordered evil.

But here’s the truth, Liberty: the Constitution isn’t fragile -- it’s stronger than your misguided crusade. And history will remember your so-called "heroism" for what it really is: self-indulgent destruction masquerading as principle

Yea yea I'm on the wrong side of history. Heard that one before.

You know how many years people practiced slavery and human sacrifice before it was abolished? A lot longer than they have cared about liberty.

I don't think it's wise to base your morality about what people might think in the future. A study of history shows enlightenment is not permanent and it can get really bad.

I think I'll stick with the dictates of reason.