News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I didn't read all of your wall of text but Roe v. Wade is a bad example. The American people should have never relied on case law precedent and should have pushed to enshrine the protections in law.
Same-sex marriage is a better example as it is protected by case law precedent in Obergefell but has also been enshrined in law through the Respect for Marriage Act.
Roe v Wade was the original example and how segregationists gained control of a large chunk of American voters just in time for Reagan to be president. Same sex marriage came later.
It's explained in the wall of text, but bottom line is you can thank the Heritage Foundation.
Which means Americans had that much longer to enshrine a woman's right to choose in law and didn't.
That is my whole point. Relying on a "historical interpretation" was always a mistake.
If you make it law then it has some measure of permanence. Better if you can get a constitutional amendment passed.
What?
The mistake was giving supreme court justices appointments for life, but the government should definitely not be given easier access to make amendments to the constitution.
The point about Roe v Wade is that people need to understand history, and how they have been used to further an agenda. They need to know that many of these issues, were never actually issues most Americans were divided over.
They were turned into divisive issues by wealthy shadow men controlling the narrative, and treating government issues like advertisement campaigns.
I had no idea until very recently that before the Heritage Foundation used it as an opportunistic platform, the southern Baptist leadership actually had a favorable viewpoint regarding Roe v Wade...
I grew up in the southern Baptist church, and I didn't know that because barely anybody in this country knows that, and absolutely nobody in the southern Baptist church fucking knows that.
You want to get people to wake up, and stop falling for whatever the next "issue" is (whether it's DEI, immigration, govt bureaucracy, AI regulations), you need them to understand the history and reality of who is actually creating the narrative and manipulating them.
Do you understand how government and law works in the US?
Case precedent, as demonstrated with Roe, can be overruled by a majority of SCOTUS.
A law goes through the house, senate and then is signed by the President and becomes law.
A US Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 vote in the house and senate and then 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.
Each one of those offer greater security of whatever issue is at hand.
Nothing I said makes it easier to amend the conversation but relying on case precedent is the same as relying on a "verbal" contract.
You understand that this goes both ways? The more we accept constitutional amendments as the norm, the more we place our liberties and constitutional rights most people just kind of assume are always guaranteed, at risk.
Look at how Trump handles executive orders. Imagine what he would do if people just accepted constitutional amendments no big deal.
I live in Louisiana, and I'm watching this happen right now with my governor and the state constitution. The amendments were worded in a very confusing way, and even legal experts agreed that it was unclear what the repercussions of the amendments passing would be.
In a surprising outcome, the state shot down all 4 of the proposed constitutional amendments, because people are recognizing this guy is a tyrant trying to abuse his executive power.
Pretty clear that people don't want those amendments right? Cool, so problem solved let's move on. Nope, he's making us vote again on the same amendments because he's, hoping that he can word it just right, and pad it with enough things that will please his voter base, so eventually voter apathy will kick in for the opposition and allow his amendments to pass.
State ≠ Federal
The harder it is to do, the harder it is to undo. That's why you enshrine it in law or a constitutional amendment.
When you don't then (currently) 5 people can decide to completely change decades of accepted practice.
I'm not sure how to explain it any simpler.
Same-sex marriage is a better example because there's been rumblings from the SCOTUS about revisiting Obergefell however, with the Respect for Marriage Act passed under Biden, same-sex marriage is protected by law. Revisiting Obergefell won't change that; it would require Congress.
Right, and who is in control of Congress right now? Any amendments they've brought up lately?
Amendment to Give Trump a Third Term Has 'A Lot of Support': GOP Rep
100 Senators and 435 Representatives.
First sentence of your article, "A Republican Representative has claimed that a proposed amendment to the Constitution to allow presidents to serve more than two terms has "a lot of support" among GOP colleagues."
I bet they make that claim; might even be true. Do they all? Does 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of Congress? Do 38 state legislatures support it?
First you accuse me of somehow arguing to make constitutional amendments easier, which I haven't. Then you provide an article where a GOP Representative has claimed something and act like all the additional hurdles of making a constitutional amendment don't exist.
I'm done with this argument. There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roe literally demonstrates the point.
Look dude, we have gotten so far from the actual point of my "wall of text," which you couldn't be bothered to read before arguing several more walls of text.
So let me just put aside the fact that I believe it's a bad idea to set a precedent where we rely too much on the government making constitutional amendments to reflect changes in modern society (not that it is not sometimes necessary, but that constitutional amendments should not be the default for improving America, otherwise you risk bad actors attempting to modify or remove protections and benefits that already exist in the constitution).
Let's also set aside that congress, currently controlled by Trump loyalists, want a constitutional amendment that would allow Trump to use the same strategy Vladimir Putin has used to make himself president for life and destroy democracy, and that this is exactly why I feel the way I do about constitutional amendments.
In a world where those concerns don't exist, I still have to ask why not just have it codified into law instead?
The short/uncomplicated answer for why Roe v Wade was never codified by something like the Women's health protection act, is because it didn't have enough support across both the house and Senate (bc once again, the issue used by the Heritage Foundation to create a false political division that didn't actually exist, has worked as intended. Yet most people are oblivious about who created that division, and the campaign they ran, that to this day, makes people feel so reactionary about things such as abortion. This is also the reason so many on the left worry they will lose moderate supporters, while taking their left base for granted, which they are now also beginning to lose due to voter apathy as a result of these people constantly trying to appease moderates.)
Given that we couldn't even get enough support for that to be codified into law, and putting aside literally everything else, why would you think it would somehow alternatively be easier to get enough congressional support to pass a constitutional amendments for any issue being used to keep people divided?
There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roe literally demonstrates the point.