Indeed. Who holds the government accountable to its own laws?

thewebguyd 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The people, using the 4 boxes of liberty: Soap Box, Ballot Box, Jury Box, and lastly, the Ammo box.

Are you suggesting people take up arms against police? Has that ever gone well for anyone, except as a quick way to die?

▲

thewebguyd 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

As a last resort when all other options have failed? Yeah, if you value democracy and don't want to bend the knee and live under an authoritarian state. Ammo box is listed last for a reason, of course, all other avenues should be pursued first.

But that doesn't change the fact that the government isn't going to stop itself from overstepping the constitution, that duty falls with the people via protest, voting, lawsuits, and as a last resort, use of force.

▲

tomalbrc 36 minutes ago | parent [-]

How is this not the exact reasoning MAGA uses for Jan. 6

	▲	thunderfork 15 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		The problem with the difference between good and bad things is, of course, that one's perspective has an impact. Americans generally think vandalism is wrong, but also that the Boston Tea Party was a good thing - yadda yadda yadda...

▲

mothballed 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I'm not suggesting it, but taking a look at history, a couple notables are the Battle of Athens and Cliven Bundy standoff. Bundy is still grazing his cattle on that land to this day.

▲

wahern 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Recent article on the younger Bundy, "Ammon Bundy Is All Alone. The anti-government militia leader can’t make sense of his allies’ support for ICE violence." https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2026/02/ammon-bundy-trump-...

	▲	mothballed 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Ammon Bundy has held relatively libertarian opinions on immigration for a long long time. Since at least the days of the standoffs. His political ideals are closer to the old time westy classical liberalism (something like founding era anti-federalists with a view of the law that essentially mirrors Bastiat) than they are to neo-conservatism.

▲

warkdarrior 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Well, the other option is to live while bending the knee. Who needs rights anyway??

▲

garciasn 6 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Congress < Supreme Court < The People

We've had a significant breakdown in process here. Congress is deadlocked. The Supreme Court is corrupt. The only thing left are The People (protest / vote < civil disobedience < escalation beyond).

▲

lemoncucumber 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You’ve got the first two backwards. The real accountability mechanism in the constitution for a rogue president/administration is impeachment by congress (which is a proxy for the people in theory). Unfortunately neither enough of congress nor enough of the electorate cares if the administration breaks the law.

▲

johnnyanmac 4 hours ago | parent [-]

In theory, yes. Any supreme court interpretation can be overruled by a congress that is truly in lockstep.

Reality, is disappointing. Where we have a dealocked congress we try to switch around every 2 years while 9 people in the courts can re-interpret how they wish with basically zero reprecussions, for life.

Maybe the SCOTUS also needs terms limits thanks to modern medical advances. I don't think the founding fathers intended for courts to remain the same people for decades on end. It can be a very long term like the Federal Reserve, but we definitely need something.

▲

rnxrx 3 hours ago | parent [-]

How about we just start with SCOTUS having transparent (and enforced) ethics and corruption policies?

	▲	johnnyanmac 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The issue lies in who enforces it. In theory, that's congress with the ability to impeach and convict members of SCOTUS. I've also thrown around ideas in my head of state SC's chief justices having a channel to court marshal a SCOTUS and eject them with a supermajority ruling. Or a band of federal judges. But there's so much more involved there I haven't begun to consider.