But my best guess for the main reason, at this point, is that they’re stuck in a cognitive and ethical limbo.
If/when they allow themselves to think through the implications of the already-completed, silent overthrow of the country and the Constitution/rule of law, they can hold onto it briefly.
But my best guess for the main reason, at this point, is that they’re stuck in a cognitive and ethical limbo.
If/when they allow themselves to think through the implications of the already-completed, silent overthrow of the country and the Constitution/rule of law, they can hold onto it briefly.
But the more you think it through, the more overwhelming it becomes to think about how to respond to the predicament.
And the more thoroughly you understand the scale and complexity and recursive nature of the crimes, the more futile it seems to resist.
So, to protect their ability to use the legal frameworks and legal tools that they’re familiar with, thanks to long legal careers, they draw back from processing the overthrow predicament.
In the overthrow scenario, all the legal land ahead is uncharted.
What are the legal mechanisms for the People to restore to power, through the courts, the same governing institutions (Congress and federal courts) that have themselves passed and then upheld the laws stripping themselves of power?
It’s similar in structure to the age-old brain teaser: “Can God create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.”
Can Congress, as authorized by the US Constitution, pass laws to suspend the US Constitution and its own authority to check and balance the executive and judicial branches? Can Congress, as authorized by the US Constitution, pass laws to suspend judicial review of executive action?
The answer is “No, but they’ve done so anyway.”
To which the next, brain-freezing question is, “Then what do we do now?”
How do you remedy a harm that, in principle, couldn’t have happened and that, in practice, the perpetrators (Congress and courts) don’t admit or possibly even understand they’ve actually done?
I bounce around in that limbo myself quite a bit. As the months pass, I can stay with it longer, and think through possible resolutions to the bind better.
But I still frequently get overcome with a kind of disbelief at the strangeness of it all.
I can see that. Not being in the legal profession, I only see, "Go get 'em! Just do it!" This is the problem of electing so many lawyers to Congress, I guess. They're the snooty version of Bubba yelling, "Hey, y'all! Watch this!" Then getting the Darwin award. Except they're not dead, our country is and soon, we may be also.
Thank-you very much for the explanation and cooling my jets.
All those things are part of it I’m sure.
But my best guess for the main reason, at this point, is that they’re stuck in a cognitive and ethical limbo.
If/when they allow themselves to think through the implications of the already-completed, silent overthrow of the country and the Constitution/rule of law, they can hold onto it briefly.
But the more you think it through, the more overwhelming it becomes to think about how to respond to the predicament.
And the more thoroughly you understand the scale and complexity and recursive nature of the crimes, the more futile it seems to resist.
So, to protect their ability to use the legal frameworks and legal tools that they’re familiar with, thanks to long legal careers, they draw back from processing the overthrow predicament.
In the overthrow scenario, all the legal land ahead is uncharted.
What are the legal mechanisms for the People to restore to power, through the courts, the same governing institutions (Congress and federal courts) that have themselves passed and then upheld the laws stripping themselves of power?
It’s similar in structure to the age-old brain teaser: “Can God create a rock so heavy that He can’t lift it.”
Can Congress, as authorized by the US Constitution, pass laws to suspend the US Constitution and its own authority to check and balance the executive and judicial branches? Can Congress, as authorized by the US Constitution, pass laws to suspend judicial review of executive action?
The answer is “No, but they’ve done so anyway.”
To which the next, brain-freezing question is, “Then what do we do now?”
How do you remedy a harm that, in principle, couldn’t have happened and that, in practice, the perpetrators (Congress and courts) don’t admit or possibly even understand they’ve actually done?
I bounce around in that limbo myself quite a bit. As the months pass, I can stay with it longer, and think through possible resolutions to the bind better.
But I still frequently get overcome with a kind of disbelief at the strangeness of it all.
I can see that. Not being in the legal profession, I only see, "Go get 'em! Just do it!" This is the problem of electing so many lawyers to Congress, I guess. They're the snooty version of Bubba yelling, "Hey, y'all! Watch this!" Then getting the Darwin award. Except they're not dead, our country is and soon, we may be also.
Thank-you very much for the explanation and cooling my jets.