Police apologists regularly proclaim that because a police officer was 'baited' or 'provoked' into abusing his authority and/or breaking the law, he should be excused for it. But the thing is, police departments engage in sting operations every day, where they go a lot further than amateur photographers to bait people into committing a crime in their presence.
If 'baiting' someone by giving them an opportunity to choose to obey the law or to choose to break is invalidates the results of making that choice, then there are an awful lot of wrongfully arrested and wrongfully convicted 'victims' of sting operations behind bars.
Instead of impeachment, how about adding a clause to the definition of treason, to include willfully and reasonably knowingly acting to subvert the constitution through legislative acts other than the well established process of amending the constitution?
The more education you have in the law, the more that clause would bite you for introducing unconstitutional bills. Treason is a crime you can be impeached for, so it handles your idea as well.
In a democracy (or reasonable facsimile) the People ARE the government.
When a police officer uses threats of violence against someone it is usually to compel them to act in a certain way. A fair amount of the time the way the police want people to act is to stop exercising troubling (to the government) political speech.
Take note of how many peaceful protests are broken up by police in riot gear, who simultaneously claim that showing up to a protest with anything that can be used as a weapon is proof of unlawful intent.
Re: Re: Sometimes it really IS conspiracy, not stupidity
A good example, at least on the porn side of things, is breasts and genitals.
Showing breasts isn't considered obscene or illegal in Japan, but showing a penis or vagina is. I wonder how Japanese people would react if every image in Japan that showed breasts suddenly sported a censor bar when viewed via a Google search -- would they accept an explanation that showing breasts is illegal in other countries so Google has to censor globally?