• artyom@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    18 hours ago

    The point is, that we can’t discount any hairbrained idea he or his staff can cook up. Because they will try it.

    It wasn’t an idea and no one “argued for this”. It was a hypothetical, used for demonstrative purposes. No one expressed any intent or made any suggestion.

    • barneyrubble@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      17 hours ago

      I won’t “argue with you” but Roth did argue the point under the theory of “non- redressability”. While some make think it’s purely speculative, I say no it’s not.

      It is just as preposterous for the president to destroy the East Wing of the Whitehouse (a national monument (landmark) that he doesn’t own or have legal authority to damage) as it is to raze the Statue of Liberty. Both are kept in the trust of the National Park service, which he controls.

      Damaging the Whitehouse is equal to damaging any other national monument. He did it in a rush so no one could/would stop him. It is absolutely no different than blowing up mount Rushmore so he could put his face there.

      It’s not his to destroy!

      I’m done arguing.

      • artyom@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        17 hours ago

        Right, that is the point that the SoL was being used as an instrument to argue. It was not a suggestion that it was something they were considering doing, as the title suggests.