310
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 11 Jan 2024
310 points (98.1% liked)
politics
19107 readers
3211 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
Honestly with how some of these laws go, I'm kinda starting to wonder if a better version of our system might be to have any new law automatically sent to a court process to determine constitutionality before it goes into effect, to stop governments from just kinda spamming blatantly unconstitutional laws and causing trouble before courts get involved to stop each one.
Yarp, and the people who signed said bill/law should be reviewed and possibly automatically impeached to verify if they should be removed from office. It is in their oaths to protect/abide by the constitution, they should know it well enough that it shouldnt be hard to tell mal intent
Edit: I mean imagine someone getting fined $35,000 for calling someone the N word. It would be ludicrous. Yet the idea that if someone accuses you of being someone that uses such speech would get them fined instead is even crazier.
Hey! Fiscally Responsible Republicans ONLY care about Taxpayer Waste when it's being used to feed Starving Children! If you want to see these people voted out they should propose feeding Hungry Kids instead!
I mean, laws that conflict with other laws but not the constitution aren't unconstitutional, and constitutional amendments are passed via a different process than regular laws generally, so I don't see how it would make amendments any more impossible than now. Similarly, judges already can block laws, so I don't see how this changes that really, unless some law in our current system is unconstitutional but never challenged. I do see how it might slow things down a little bit, because it adds an extra step for laws to go through before taking effect, and increases the number of court cases though
Heinlein suggested an additional branch of the government similar to Congress with the express mandate of repealing laws and with lower requirements to repeal.
This doesn't solve the constitutional question. And I'm sure it would be packed with career politicians bouncing from chamber to chamber.
On second thought, taking more fuck heads in government may not be such a good idea.