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 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
view the rest of the comments
None of that explains how they plan to get around the Constitution, though...which is very clear in its interpretation.
Simple. Ignore it and own enough judges that any cases get killed.
Woo fascism. 😐
In my mind that would open the door to forgetting some other constitutionally defined things. Like, who is a President.
He's already broken the constitution like a dozen times, and he's still president. Fascists do not relinquish power without force.
"Rules for thee, not for me!"
"What are you going to do about it?".
Just like everything else he does
From the article. This is basically their plan for once the Supreme Court allows it.
The court didn't actually rule that Trump's changes to birthright citizenship are legal, they only ruled that the lower courts couldn't issue nationwide injunctions to stop him.
Is that functionally different in your mind? Perhaps it is slightly different if we assume they're going to stop here and not take it any further but that seems obviously untrue so I'm not sure why the distinction matters.
It's different because the court is still likely to have to rule on the actual problem eventually. They might get around to ruling that Trump's changes are unconstitutional, but they have this weird idea that the "harm" Trump would suffer by having his probably-unconstitutional plans put on hold while courts sort out their legality is somehow greater than the harm suffered by all the people who will be affected if the plans go ahead.
This is like that time when the supreme court had to hold deliberations on whether the local police in an active shooter situation could take the gun away from the shooter, and potentially violate the shooter's second amendment rights. They didn't rule on it right away, but issued a ruling that lower courts could not rule on the constitutionality of disarming the active shooter, and had to allow the shooter to continue shooting until the second amendment implications could be considered by the supreme court. Then they went into recess.
Edit: None of this happened
That's like the difference between banning abortion nationwide and just allowing states to ban it
That doesn't explain how they plan to get around the 14th amendment, though. It just outlines what they plan to do, once they have.
The Supreme Court, obviously. They will just explain how the wording is confusing and doesn’t actually mean birthright citizenship the way we typically do. Fact that they told Trump to start issuing guidance tells me they are going to tailor their ruling to that guidance.
Actually, the way they worded that decision made it sound like they wanted to hear how they would go about doing this..."legally". Meaning, what rationale could they come up with, that wouldn't violate the 14th amendment. They are willing to entertain arguments to that effect, but aren't just going to sign off on a direct violation of the Constitution.
This latest outline from the Trump administration doesn't do that. It just elaborates on what they would do, if they were allowed to proceed, anyway. But it says nothing about how they would actually circumvent the 14th amendment.
You're forgetting something: laws and constitutions don't matter unless those in charge of enforcing it agree with it.
Enforcing laws, the Constitution, judgements from judges - all that is done by the executive.
When there's a fascist corrupt executive function, you get selective enforcement and convenient ignoring of parts of the law, serving the double effect of 1) keeping the corrupt executive in power and in control and 2) discrediting the institutions, furthering the corruption.
Yay.
And at some point, you will also get civil war. It's one thing for Trump to use legal slight-of-hand to look for loopholes in the Constitution...but it's another thing entirely for him to simply violate it.
There is nothing in the legal framework of the United States that allows any president to simply overrule a Constitutional amendment. The 2nd amendment exists to protect the others from an autocratic tyrant.
Is it? The American people have to actually stand up and defend their democracy. I'm not sure that'll ever happen.
Or you get a descent into a dictatorship that it's almost impossible to organize against. Civil war is not inevitable, and I don't see Americans being particularly eager to fight one. And the further the country slides down the dictatorship slope, the less likely it is that you can raise any kind of effective resistance.
If that's the case, then things will eventually lead to another world war. A country as powerful as the US deciding to go full-fascist, will not be tolerated by other world powers for long.
Lmao no. Nobody cares as long as America doesn't knock on their door first. You think Europe will declare war on America for enacting a MAGA holocaust, let alone put in enough effort to have even the slightest hope of success? And in that case, do you think China would do literally anything but watch and pit both sides against each other while they profit and maybe invade Taiwan? Geopolitics isn't that simple.
And you think the US won't attack one of their allies, at some point? They've already said they would if they don't get what they want from Canada, Mexico, Panama, and Greenland. Any one of those potential conflicts would lead to wider war.
Nope, none of them will. Canada could become a proxy war between Europe and America, but I fully believe that if push comes to shove they'll be thrown under the bus. I mean, have you seen how Europe has treated Ukraine since 2022? As for the rest, those are non-starters. Mexico and Panama have nothing to do with Europe, and there's no way Britain or Germany are sending troops over Greenland. America would need to attack European home soil for such a thing to happen, and America has self-sufficiency in holocaustable untermensch.
Ukraine isn't a member of NATO. If it was, do you honestly think Europe wouldn't have gotten directly involved by now? They've already declared their unconditional support, and have donated billions of dollars worth of military hardware to their defense. The commitment is there.
Canada on the other hand, is a founding member of NATO. And Greenland is the sovereign territory of another. If the US attacks either one of them, it will trigger article 5 of the charter. The rest of NATO will have no choice but to respond, or leave the alliance...which would immediately open them up to attack from Russia. And they would be forced to defend themselves alone. There is no way any of them would be that stupid. Not with Russia on one side, and the US on the other. It would be suicide.
Seems to me that the Western countries are busy trying to appease the fascists, when they're not heading full tilt towards fascism themselves. What happens when we have a fascist USA, a fascist Russia, an authoritarian China, a fascist India, and a Europe that's in large part fascist with residual packets of neoliberalism? Will Brazil and some African countries fight them all? Or will the next war be between the fascist world and the world that's controlled by China?
I think you are mistaking "conflict avoidance" with "appeasement". The rest of the western world is trying to avoid open conflict with those countries...the US included. If the US, Russia or China were to attack any of them, though...there would be war. And the so-called "fascist world" are not capable of remaining functionally united. They'll stab each other in the back as soon as the opportunity presents itself.
Americans have been saying that for centuries, but I don't see them taking any action.
So who's gonna fight the civil war?
The Constitution is just a piece of paper with words in it. We need people to enforce the Constitution with political power.
It's only a piece of paper with words in it, if no one is willing to stand up and defend it. We the People can enforce it.