politics
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 US politics and contain quality and original content. Social Media adjacent hosts like Substack are allowed, but ONLY if they tie back to a company/subsidiary. No personal or friend group blogs and no self-promotion. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and re-hosted 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 other users of being bots or paid actors.
- No memes, trolling, misinformation, or low-effort posts/comments (including reposts). If you see posts like this that anger you, do not engage. Report, block, and live a happier life than they do. Any slap-fight is subject to comment removals. Fights full of rule violations will result in temporary bans to cool off.
- No manipulating votes via bots or alt accounts; this will result in permanent bans. 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 an account ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be permanently banned.
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules and use critical thinking when reading, posting, and commenting. Users that repeatedly have 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. The reason(s) behind moderator action(s) are publicly available through the Modlog.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
There is one left, but we're not allowed to talk about it.
Will there be enough Republicans in the House and Senate to pass laws like that without Democrat support? All they'll have is a simple majority in both.
SCROTUS "reinterpreting" all the laws is the fascists' best bet, I think.
Those Democrats have careers and families they care about. It doesn't take much pressure to own a few of them. Especially without checks and balances and add in some bootlicking appointees to the three letter agencies.
They'd need more than a few, though, more like dozens. It'll just be all-out fascism without even a pretense of legitimacy at that point.
I'm pretty certain all out fascism is what we're going to have. A handful of Democrats are not enough to hold democracy together. I don't think it will be long before there's not even a pretense of that being the case.
I'm unfortunately inclined to agree.
It does have one circumstance:
I'm trying to figure out how they will argue that immigrants are not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof".
If they aren't, then border patrol would have no grounds to detain them. ICE could not deport them...
Try this on for size: Trump follows Texas's lead, and declares them to be invaders. Enemy combatants aren't subject to the laws of the nation they are invading.
Trump can argue that Border Patrol is performing a military role, rather than a law enforcement role.
I've only heard that applied to foreign diplomats. Because the parents have diplomatic immunity, they and their children aren't "subject to the jurisdiction thereof."
I think I figured it out... Diplomats are not actually the only persons who can be within American borders without being subject to American law. Another category is "Enemy Combatant".
Remember that Texas has declared immigrants to be invaders.
Considering it's how his followers already use their Bible, we can assume they have the same level of "reverence" for the constitution.
To be fair the 14th amendment was really only intended to give freed slaves citizenship. Which is something I'm sure the Supreme Court will cite as part of "original intent" they justify so many rulings with.
So were the 1800's wave of European immigrants, that most white americans descended from, mostly naturalized or did they just use the 14th amendment too? I'm not be factious, I actually don't know but always assumed it was the former.
It was the state's burden to prove otherwise.
Easy - declare that kids of illegal immigrants aren’t subject to the jurisdiction of the US, then the 14th amendment doesn’t apply!
Of course you’d probably still need legislation to do that, if not an amendment.
I think he wants us to shit ourselves in public about this stuff so he can mock us, but the grandiose gestures he’s throwing around right now are mostly just laughably stupid. I’m still preparing for the shitstorm but I don’t think the big noises he’s making now are telegraphing the real plays.
The only hope I hold onto is that we need a constitutional convention anyway. If this convinces states to actually trigger an Article 5 convention, then I'm all for it.
Have you seen our states?