“Question: When does the legal means to accomplish an end become an extraordinary measure? What’s the dividing line that you appear to be arguing for here?” In this particular case, I would say that having to go through the process of impeaching 2 officials, simply to get them to enforce the law would be an “extraordinary measure”.
“Question: Am I free to decide this as an individual or is this objective in some way?” You’re free to decide whatever you want. This is a philosophical discussion.
“Question: What issues bring special consideration to deciding if the legal means has become an extraordinary measure?” In my opinion, the notion that anyone would have to impeach an official, simply to have a law enforced, is an extraordinary measure. If that is something common in your state, remind me not to visit your state.
“Question: Would a different selection of targets - say the Governor or the prosecutor - have made this more or less of an extraordinary measure?” Not sure what you’re asking here.
Pardon soccermom - you seem to have misunderstood the questions.
When I asked what the dividing line here for extraordinary measures I meant in general - not in this specific case. You seem to be making an argument that there are extra-ordinary measures which can dismiss our responsibility to accept the rule of law and work within it. I’m just trying to find out what those boundaries are in general. For example: Does having to elect two new officials always count or does the power of the office have something to do with it? (e.g. It’s an extraordinary measure to have to remove a Governor but not a dogcatcher. That sort of thing.)
Also - I know I’m personally free to decide what I want. I’m curious as to whether you believe individuals, in general, should get to decide when extraordinary measures justify abandoning the rule of law or if there are specific and objective guidelines or boundaries we must follow. Do I just get to wake up one day and say “This is intolerable!” and start shooting? If not, why not?
To clarify the last question - Lets say that the Tiller killer had instead targeted the governor and the prosecutor for death. Would that have required more or less of an extraordinary measure to kill them instead? If not, why not? If so, why so?