In reply to:
Both Sides Lie
@BothSidesLie
·
43d
Marianne Williamson
@marwilliamson
·
43d
The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the constitutional balance of power between the branches of government, specifically the role of the judiciary in checking presidential power. It responds to a conversation about a legislative bill perceived to undermine judicial authority.
- The statement does not use harmful language and maintains a factual tone, aligning with the principle of doing no harm. [+1]Principle 1:I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
- The statement promotes understanding by clarifying the constitutional role of the judiciary, fostering a more informed discussion. [+1]Principle 3:I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
- The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the content of the argument rather than attacking the individual, adhering to the principle of avoiding personal attacks. [+1]Principle 4:I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
- The statement upholds free speech by responsibly using the platform to discuss constitutional principles, demonstrating integrity. [+1]Principle 7:I will uphold the principles of free speech and use my platform responsibly and with integrity.