Gavel All the Way Down Prematurely? Illegal Orders Issue.
Posted by HCN on Wednesday, November 26, 2025
In the news now, November 25, 2025, are some issues about illegal orders, and turbulence that went into ramifications, involving top tiers of US government.
There might exist right now a series of rhetorical heat in the framework of Capitol Hill, where stretching the limits of erudition and application (of what the erudition holds), may be a fairly accurate description of what is going on.
Being real, would a Senator, like Mark Kelly of Arizona, actually not know dress codes?
Honestly, there are cases where there are more than one, more than three right answers.
That's where balance of government branches, political parties, and court judges come in an at; they weighing properly gray areas.
Ignoring/ refusing to concede to illegal laws- interpretation of law is a big reason why there are a variety of members of government.
Choosing certain laws, and if not compliant, sedition is the charge automatic, isn't going to be in sync with the flow of government process, when, there are clear substantiations for an interpretation to determine something is illegal.
The way to handle it, take it to the lawmaking floor.
In theory, making calls for an illegal action or 'law', could be seditious, because it could give rise to seditious behavior, so there's an a priori before the a priori that there is an assumption that whatever law has been announced is 'automatically' correct just because of and do said it. Assertion of a law as correct when it is not is kingship not democracy. On the obverse, if a law is felt by a viewpoint as not fully correct, while the emanation if the law also feels they are correct, the correct way to remedy the discrepancies in views is use the government system correctly.
Lest some of these aspects are mistaken; a brief write-up without a dissertation of research done in the minutes before it's writing.
Backdrop/hindsight: some of the kinds of things that seem like they are going on now, might have went on during the Vietnam War era, for example, reference State Department versus US military viewpoints, differing applications or interpretations of the same law.
There might exist right now a series of rhetorical heat in the framework of Capitol Hill, where stretching the limits of erudition and application (of what the erudition holds), may be a fairly accurate description of what is going on.
Being real, would a Senator, like Mark Kelly of Arizona, actually not know dress codes?
Honestly, there are cases where there are more than one, more than three right answers.
That's where balance of government branches, political parties, and court judges come in an at; they weighing properly gray areas.
Ignoring/ refusing to concede to illegal laws- interpretation of law is a big reason why there are a variety of members of government.
Choosing certain laws, and if not compliant, sedition is the charge automatic, isn't going to be in sync with the flow of government process, when, there are clear substantiations for an interpretation to determine something is illegal.
The way to handle it, take it to the lawmaking floor.
In theory, making calls for an illegal action or 'law', could be seditious, because it could give rise to seditious behavior, so there's an a priori before the a priori that there is an assumption that whatever law has been announced is 'automatically' correct just because of and do said it. Assertion of a law as correct when it is not is kingship not democracy. On the obverse, if a law is felt by a viewpoint as not fully correct, while the emanation if the law also feels they are correct, the correct way to remedy the discrepancies in views is use the government system correctly.
Lest some of these aspects are mistaken; a brief write-up without a dissertation of research done in the minutes before it's writing.
Backdrop/hindsight: some of the kinds of things that seem like they are going on now, might have went on during the Vietnam War era, for example, reference State Department versus US military viewpoints, differing applications or interpretations of the same law.
