and for average citizens, what we can do is refuse to shut up about the utterly gigantic stakes of this election to everyone we know.
2 replies
14 reposts
90 likes
Reposted by Mark Stout
Do something.
Protest.
Organize a protest.
Join/organize a group.
Do door to door canvassing.
Do phone banking.
Donate to bail funds & groups.
Write congresscritters.
Express your values to friends & coworkers & family.
Search the internet for ideas if you have to.
0 replies
9 reposts
28 likes
I so want to disagree with you.
I can't.
0 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
I believe the phrase was that the American Protective League was "organized with the approval and operating under the direction of the United States Department of Justice." It numbered 250,000 at its peak.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
IANAL, but they'd not be official forces so it'd presumably be a different analysis. But I don't know? And what if they get somehow deputized? I'm thinking here of the American Protective League during World War I. It was a volunteer organization but operated under the imprimatur of Justice.
1 replies
0 reposts
1 likes
Any lawyers, including those who do military law have thoughts on this thought? POTUS is commander-in-chief of the military, commanding the military is clearly a core constitutional duty. So, can POTUS give an illegal order?
4 replies
8 reposts
23 likes
Ugh. IANAL, but that sounds persuasive.
0 replies
0 reposts
2 likes
Reposted by Mark Stout
The US continues its slide into outright authoritarianism. You don’t have to be a scholar of fascism to know how much courts have aided and abetted autogolpes and the like.
Terrifying beyond measure. There are no safe places.
0 replies
4 reposts
17 likes
I wonder what considerations would play into that determination. I mean POTUS is commander-in-chief of the military. And what if he could say that he has double-plus secret intelligence that says the opponent is a saboteur, a wrecker, a Trotskyite, a counter-revolutionary, and a spy. Ugh.
1 replies
0 reposts
2 likes