3 ms·
There's lot of jurisdictions, United States has great jurisprudence on this dating back to July 4th, 1776. France, Great Britain, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, a
by _3u10 2y ago
There's lot of jurisdictions, United States has great jurisprudence on this dating back to July 4th, 1776. France, Great Britain, Paraguay, Brazil, Argentina, all of latin america in fact, have examples of using this legal strategy effectively.
Venezuela may overrule the courts later this year.
Judge not lest ye be judged yourself.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> United States has great jurisprudence on this dating back to July 4th, 1776 Revolution isn’t a legal strategy. (It’s a political one.) There is political precedent of blowing off courts. But that is almost always a unilateral challenge to a system’s rule of law. That’s what Musk alleged. But complaining about sanctions when engaging in ersatz revolution is like complaining about arrest when engaging in civil disobedience—it’s the expected result. (See: Google in China.)
- _3u10 2y agoUnder UK law, and court rulings dating back to the trial of King Charles, parliament is supreme and authorized the revolution, it’s a legal strategy.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago> parliament is supreme and authorized the revolution, it’s a legal strategy You’re referring to the Trial of King Charles I? That legally wasn’t a revolution, but an act of the sovereign Parliament. (It also didn’t happen in America or in 1776.) It’s actually quite relevant, given Charles I refused to acknowledge the Commons’ legitimacy. He was executed. And the entire thing is deemed legal.
- _3u10 2y agoYup that’s what I was referring to
- JumpCrisscross 2y agoSure. Musk is playing Charles I. The English king who took up arms at the head of a foreign army against his own people and didn’t recognise the legitimacy of an elected government because god said he shouldn’t have to.