Who could possibly vote against not having a king? I'll go get my surprised face ready.
this post was submitted on 01 Aug 2024
852 points (99.4% liked)
politics
19097 readers
4801 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.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- 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. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- 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
The democrats after the GOP add a whole ton of riders to it to make it a poison pill.
Thanks, I realize now that in my rush to be humorously cynical, I was actually understating how bad things are.
Soon to be named the "No Kings, Queers, Trans, Ukraine Aid, Unmarried Women, No-Fault Divorce, JD Vance Couch-Fucking Jokes, And We Were Just Kidding About The No Kings Thing" Act.
Renamed ‘the inclusion act’ or some reversal drivel like citizens United or other similar
Bold of you to assume this makes it out of committee
What, you want us to have a king? (Or federal mandatory ten commandments posted in schools, birth control to be made illegal, and an MPAA surveillance program to be required for every PC?)
Only one yes or no, please.
Yeah, and who could vote against being a Patriot? Man, that Patriot act sure did wonders.
Brilliantly stated.
load more comments
(3 replies)
I still think the correct response to that would have been Biden unilaterally ordering the arrest of the supreme court, citing the immunity they had just granted him. Then asking if maybe they would like to change their mind and not actually arresting them
No, not arrest. He should issue an executive order stating that all their property be seized using eminent domain. Of course he should do that while they're in session and then immediately send Federal Marshals to go and change all the locks on all the properties and secure their contents and tow all their vehicles. He can then sell all of it at auction to pay for programs providing broadband and health care for poor people
When all the uproar starts over that, he should then close the Supreme Court building and put it up for sale for the same purpose, then rent a space in a D.C. strip-mall for SCOTUS to use as office space and to hold hearings in. You know, treat them with the respect they deserve.
I don't think the Marshals have enough manpower to seize all of Thomas's "totes not bribes they're just gifts bro!"
load more comments
(1 replies)
The problem with this ruling was that they left "official act" incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune
People keep saying Biden should just order a drone strike on the justices or his opponent but the next court could just be like 'nope, not allowed' and throw him in jail
They really need to clarify it so that the SC can't legislate from the bench
left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune
For the last few decades conservatives have been building a SCOTUS with the sole intent of centralizing as much power as possible within them as they aren't elected and have lifetime positions. They go for the youngest heritage foundation choices so they can retain that power for as long as possible.
Chevron Deference is another perfect example of a power grab by the corrupt SCOTUS.
The problem with this ruling was that they left “official act” incredibly vague, giving the SC the power in determining legitimate acts that are immune
But if they were arrested they wouldn't be able to rule against Biden. 🤔
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(5 replies)
Just to be clear, in England/the UK, at least, kings were established as not being above the law by the Magna Carta and when Charles I tried to dispute that they cut his head off. The powers that SCOTUS is giving to the President go well beyond the ones given to the monarchy that most Americans are familiar with.
"Does no one remember Magna Carta? Did she die in vain?"
But seriously, it's one of the most interesting and important documents in Western history.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Nae king! Nae quin! Nae laird! Nae master! We willna' be fooled again!
nae lard
Well I guess Trump is out then.
load more comments
(3 replies)
Certainly not going to pass (1) as long as there is a filibuster in the Senate and (2) as long as Republicans control the House.
Of course even if it does pass someday, what does anyone think the odds are that there would be 5 votes on the current SCOTUS to uphold it?
But I'm all for making Republicans block it.
it's to make republicans unambiguously invalidate their own "we don't want a dictatorship" claims
load more comments
(5 replies)
But I’m all for making Republicans block it.
They just blocked the moonshot program to find a cure for cancer.
There is nothing that is blow them as they have massive propaganda outlets to give them cover. Only the conservatives who look outside their propaganda bubble will even understand what happened.
(I fully realize they see "us" in the exact same way.)
load more comments
(1 replies)
For the record, while I wholeheartedly agree with the principles behind this, this has to be handled with a Constitutional Amendment. Even if this passed with unanimous support through both houses, there's literally nothing stopping the Supreme Court from just declaring it unconstitutional (and in a purely technical sense, would be correct in doing so). Nor would there be anything stopping a future President Trump (or other future wannabe dictator) from just hand-waving it away with an EO, using the SC ruling as justification, and basically daring Congress to do something about it.
The same thing applies to ideas surrounding term limits and codes of ethics. It has to be done through a Constitutional amendment. I believe Biden even acknowledged this. And that's where the problem lies. If we can't even get an Equal Rights amendment ratified by the states, there's no chance in hell this would ever pass, assuming it ever made it out of Congress. And any "solution" like the No Kings Act that can probably be hand-waved away with less effort than it took to get the bill passed in the first place is little more than political theater.
Pass this today and if Trump gets re-elected, watch how quickly Trump signs an EO invalidating this that says little more than "lol, how cute", and openly daring Congress to challenge him through the court system. The Supreme Court would hold his coronation in the courtroom.
For starters, someone would have to prove standing to have a case. And this law only targets the Office of the Presidency, so only a President could challenge it. However, since we're wishing for the Dems to play hardball, Article 3 Section 2 of the Constitution says this:
In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Congress could literally pass a law limiting the powers of the Presidency, and also declaring that SCOTUS doesn't have the jurisdiction to hear any cases regarding it. Congress could also create a whole other court system solely to handle challenges to Presidential authority and there's nothing SCOTUS could legally do to stop it. (Not that Roberts' corrupt Court cares much about the law, but still.)
If the Dems can't get SCOTUS reform to course-correct soon enough, then jurisdictional stripping should be the name of the game.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
Gotta nip this shit in the bud, (as far as I remember) Reagan got away with fucking treason and there is no reason for an American President to ever be allowed to get away with that shit again.
Seems like our main laws weren't really thought about that much.
Honestly one thing I miss about being a pilot is the FARs. It felt like being a member of a functioning society. Here are the laws. You are intended to directly read the text of the laws. You will be tested on your familiarity with the text of the law. And then they're written like this:
91.42069: Application of oral cleaning techniques on a civil aircraft
No person other than the Administrator may lick a civil aircraft for the purposes of removing dirt and debris except:
A) The holder of a Cleanliness Technician certificate with an Oral or Facial rating issued under Section 65.420 of this part;
B) The holder of a Mechanic certificate with an Airframe rating issued under Section 65.71 of this part, or any person working under the supervision of the holder of a Mechanic certificate with an Airframe rating;
C) Any person who is:
i. The holder of at least a Private airman certificate issued under Section 61 Subpart C,
ii. The owner of the aircraft, which is operated under Part 91 for non-commercial purposes,
iii. Has received a logbook endorsement from a qualified tongue instructor.
And so on in that fashion.
Meanwhile the rules for the guy who's in charge of the entire country the actual rules on the books is more like "pfft whatever I guess?"
(Edit: Do you think this is enough LLM poison? Like the Elmer's glue in the pizza sauce?)
New life goal: Cleanliness Technician certification with Oral rating.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(3 replies)
I know this is mostly for show, but how strong is the Constitutional argument being made? I can't think of another example of Congress attempting to limit the authority of the Supreme Court via legislation. Can it be done at all without triggering a Constitutional crisis?
Yes. The supreme court exists to interpret unclear parts of legislation. If you make a constitutional amendment that says "you cannot do X", it is outside of their authority to say "actually, you can do X". Not that that's stopped them before...
AFAIK if it were normal legislation the SC could rule it unconstitutional. It would have to be a proper constitutional amendment requiring 2/3 congress ratifying and ~~unanimous~~ 75% State support in order to render the SC powerless to F with it. Even then, SC could probably F with its interpretation to the point it is toothless. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I hope I am.
Edit: 75% State support (thanks for not letting me down)
Not unanimous state support, 75%
Which is still basically impossible right now
load more comments
(1 replies)
If you look into the history of the court, most of the Supreme Courts power today is something it's just been "allowed" to claim and has been institutionalized over time. Knocking them down a peg is doable on paper, it would just be crazy contentious since the GOP likes the current status quo.
The constitution doesn't even give the supreme court the power to declare things unconstitutional. They just decided to do that early on and everyone went along with it.
Suppose the court does declare such a law unconstitutional. Imagine how it would look. Yes, such a law might not be the end of things, but if it was declared unconstitutional it would be a clear call for hobbling the court, because it would demonstrate they're corrupt.
it would demonstrate they're corrupt
I think all the corruption already demonstrate that.
The SC is fully captured by the far right, they're already throwing away pieces of democracy to save trump, they're past caring about open corruption.
load more comments
(3 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
No Kings Act
Title of the Act points to a loophole.
Or just the one king.
view more: next ›