this post was submitted on 19 Nov 2024
71 points (97.3% liked)

politics

19126 readers
2409 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] disguy_ovahea@lemmy.world 7 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

Oh, I misunderstood.

Yes, that’s if he intends to amend the Constitution. Lucky for him, he can deviate from the Constitution all he wants without repercussions, since the Republican controlled Congress will not hold him accountable to the document, and the conservative SCOTUS will not overturn an unconstitutional law.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 0 points 5 days ago (1 children)

the conservative SCOTUS will not overturn an unconstitutional law.

I think you might be surprised here. Conservative judges are inclined to follow the plain meaning of the text of the Constitution at the time it was written. There's not much wiggle room in this:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

They just need to redefine "persons."

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago (2 children)

I could imagine them trying to include corporations... but seriously, Constitutional textualism is a cornerstone of what it means to be a conservative judge. They're pretty content to ignore or reverse precedent, but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

[–] Nougat@fedia.io 10 points 5 days ago (1 children)

... but not to get creative about something spelled out plainly in the Constitution.

And yet, presidents now have extremely wide criminal immunity.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 1 points 5 days ago

There's nothing in the text of the Constitution that says they don't.

Like most sane people, I think that decision was overly broad and has dangerous implications. On the other hand, if Congress could make crimes about Article 2 powers, that would effectively allow Congress to take those powers for itself by statute, overruling the Constitution's assignment of them to the president.

[–] Scubus@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 days ago

Lmao, "what it means to be a conservative judge"

Bruh there are no values, being a conservative judge just means youre either comically dumb and fail upwards, or you are actually pretty smart, lack any sort of morals or decency, and know how to manipulate yhose around you for your benefit and their loss.

Lets not try to write conservatives as if they actually have something they stand behind now