454
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2024
454 points (99.1% liked)
politics
18586 readers
4927 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Until there are some kind of real penalties for submitting unconstitutional legislation, we will not be able to stop these clowns from abusing our state legislatures.
Seriously I’ve said it before if you’ve backed legislation found to be blatantly unconstitutional you should be removed from office.
Removed, advocating violence.
I'd argue that those were two separate clauses and aren't related.
They could do positive things for society
I have space in my yard to increase the amount of compost I produce.
Those two clauses are separate statements, IMHO. A non sequitur, sure, but unrelated, nonetheless
Yeah no, you know what you meant. Don't get cheeky about it.
Removed, unapologetic advocacy of violence.
Until you get clowns like we have in the Supreme Court shooting down women’s healthcare rights and this too becomes weaponized against the Democrats because those rights are somehow “unconstitutional”.
I say blatantly which would be different in legalese but basically, if it is directly without need for interpretation such as saying gay people cannot be teachers which is directly discriminating against sexual orientation, then you’re out. Meanwhile if it’s later found to be unconstitutional due to interpretation or implementation such as stop and frisk then you’re not removed, though any laws copying said law that was already found unconstitutional WOULD then cause you to be removed because duh we’ve been here before.
Edit: also, only said outed from office and not banned as if it’s used to remove people they could still be voted back in with a special election or whatever, similar to what happened with jones/pearson being removed using bullshit.
It really should have to pass some form of nonpartisan review before being able to be introduced. I hate that as a private citizen, I have to track possible legislation and make time during the day to tell them that it's clearly unconstitutional, have them pass it anyways, and then wait between 2-10 years for the courts to tell them (maybe).
Informally, I believe this has been resolved by having the state attorney general sign off on most legislation as to its constitutionality. In my state, the attorney general is a shitheel. But, he has called out anti-gay legislation as blatantly unconstitutional and a waste of time and money. The lawmakers want headlines and ALEC money. They don't give two shits about it being lawful or costly or harmful.
I'm not aware of any states where the attorney general can block introduction of legislation.
If I insinuated they could block it, that wasn't my intention. It is basically a check without teeth. They can make a stink about it and a recommendation to the governor before signing but they have no legislative power.
Putting the legislation in front of my nonpartisan review board of Federalist Society Judges, Corporate Board Members, and Silicon Valley AI machines.
I've been thinking along the same lines for a while. If I call 911 and submit a knowingly false report, I get charged with a crime. If I submit knowingly false paperwork to the government, I can be charged with a crime or at least infraction and fined.
But these people we elect who have entire staffs that are for making sure they always have enough information are submitting blatantly unconstitutional laws just to get them passed through a majority congress to be again and again shot down at the judicial level should really face consequences.
Though I don't know what that would be without it being used to easily punish political opponents. If there's a law that does this and gives the judiciary more power, how will it be used when conservatives control those 2 branches?
There's a long history of lynching and SWATing in America that suggests otherwise.
Who Watches The Watchmen?
Who gets to decide what constitutes "Unconstitutional Legislation" and dole out the penalties? The courts (stacked with conservatives)? The police (staffed with fascists)? The voters (caged until only the Republicans have a functional majority)?
At some level, this is a popular movement of the Elect. It isn't just Ron going off on a limb. He's got enormous financial and social support from other like minded white supremacists.
That's not something you can combat without an organized opposition.
Yes, this is the danger of fascism playing with language.
They aren't trying to be logical or fair. They aren't here for debate. They're here to do what they want to do, period.
Which is why they also inevitably fall apart, (eventually) they can't even have that conversation internal to the movement and agree on what it is they want to do.
It's more than that. It's a power dynamic.
At some point you need a large group of people in positions of power supporting a policy in order to enact it.
Even reducing this down to liberal v conservative, you're not going to find a political body favorable to liberals when it is stacked with conservatives.
The law doesn't restrict Satanism, this is just a comment Desantis made