I saw one senator use the phrase "Inconsistent with the values enshrined in our Constitution". I think they're intentionally making it easy for others to misuse the word "unconstitutional" after hearing that. "Constitution" is an uncommon word, and someone not carefully listening may conflate it with things that are actually unconstitutional, especially when people use the word "dictator" and "fascist" in a similar context.
I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.
There's a reason I've been saying "defend the Constitution" rather than calling specific actions unconstitutional.
That reason is pretty simple: populist dictators need to be stopped early, if we're to minimize the harm. (That is, if we're going to resolve the issue politically, rather than through other means.)
Many dictators (and early in history, emporers) who take over from democratic societies do so "legally". They enact measures to remove the various aspects of government they dislike or which check their power after destroying the judiciary and seizing control of the media.
Defending the American system against a dictator -- and America becoming a dictatorship could happen -- requires winning the hearts and minds of the public, and getting them to engage with the system to show their support.
Without the public -- who make up the military, civil servants, etc -- judges are people in silly robes, the Congress is a bunch of old people in a building, the president is just some guy, and the Constitution is just a piece of paper.
Trump's actions are those of a nascent dictator, the people arguing with me are rules lawyering rather than talking about the substantive issues, and neither should be surprised that people stand up to their nonsense.
I know which side of history I want to be on -- the side with people like John McCain speaking out how this, what's happening now, isn't okay, and not the side who has to quibble about technicalities rather than the substance of the issue.
That also requires proposing an alternate vision for the country that is more compelling than the dictator's, though.
See eg. George Lakoff's comments on framing [1]. If you set yourself up as "opposing Trump", you actually reinforce Trump as the leader of America. You need to propose an alternative frame about what America should look like instead, one that is more compelling than "Make America Great Again", and then let people judge for themselves that the facts of Trump's policy do not fit in with a great America.
I agree, in general, and generally am not a fan of how Democrats are conducting themselves -- they've failed to articulate their vision in a compelling manner, in the language a large portion of the voter-base speaks. (This is mostly what I work on changing in person. That, and they've adopted some bad policy positions.)
This thread is a little different than the general case though, because we're specifically talking about the appropriateness of various agencies talking about brewing scandals and/or internally resisting orders.
For that case, it's perfectly appropriate to point out that the person we're discussing is a nascent dictator and likely Russian collaborator, because it explains why I'm more aggressive on the issue than, say, with Bush.
I appreciate the link, will be doing some reading this afternoon. :)
I'd kind of like to keep the legal meaning of "unconstitutional"(an action that would be ruled against by the Supreme Court), because the alternative is for me to say things like, "It's okay for the President to do an unconstitutional act", which the fuzzier meaning allows.