"The president can do whatever they want as long as it's legal!" Haha, good one.
yeah that's how laws work. by definition. the things that are legal are permissible. the thing that are illegal are not permissible. the democratically elected president can nominate a justice because that's what the constitution directs him or her to do. the democratically elected senate can confirm or deny that nomination because that's what the constitution directs them to do. citizens control who is in the senate and who sits in the white house.
i don't think you've actually thought through what you're saying. just think for a moment about the implications of your argument that there are things that are legal and constitutional but can still justifiably be resisted with force and violence. individuals and groups do not get to unilaterally constrain others from actions that are constitutionally protected simply because they decided that they don't like the outcome, or to enforce their interpretation of an amendment over the one that was achieved through constitutionally protected checks and balances.
is that the world you want to live in, where people who believe health care is a universal right get to arm themselves in support of it? what about blm protestors who believe that the state is denying them their basic fundamental liberties? are you down with them arming up? does the state get to make caveats to the first amendment? i mean, just because something is legal doesn't mean you should be able to do it, so the state gets to do that, too? what about non-state actors? can other political groups decide that i can't "do i want just because it's legal" and use force to stop me from saying things they don't like? what if i agree with and support positions that they think deny rights to others, like a pro-abortion stance? are they justified in using force to stop me? you down with that?
Also, you're right, if I were a Muslim, then believing that my book should be implemented in government would be my right. I may even violently fight for that right. As you may or may not have noticed, a lot of Muslims are doing that very thing.
cool, i don't think that should be the model for political change in the united states is what i'm saying. i think constitutionally prescribed remedies are preferable to living in mosul or aleppo or whatever you're trying to say.
It's how a suppressed citizenship deals with a tyrannical government.
a democratically elected president fulfilling his or her constitutionally protected duties is the exact opposite of tyranny. that's called rule of law, and i don't want to live in a place where it is unilaterally usurped. i'd don't think the people who voted for those outcomes should have their votes cancelled by whoever is most willing to be violent/has the most guns.
Where did I say any of that? I mentioned that the second amendment will be protected by the second amendment. That's not "everyone better do what I say or be shot!" that's a warning. The very purpose of the second amendment is to serve as that warning. A warning that if a government goes too far, it is the right of the people to draw the line.
right, you're not using threats of violence, you're just saying that if hillary clinton nominates a justice who interprets the second amendment differently than you do, the people with guns are going to make her regret it and everyone who agrees with her.
again, it is absolutely defies logic to suggest that the constitution prohibits what the constitution prescribes, or that adhering to its mandates is "government going too far." i kinda doubt that the founders intended the people to "draw the line" at the lawful fulfillment of constitutional mandates. more-so than any other time i've said it, what you're saying is literal nonsense.
i guess i didn't read the bit in the constitution about how the second amendment is immune from judicial review. which section is that in again?