550
submitted 9 months ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/news@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 16 points 9 months ago
[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 9 points 9 months ago

They explain in the ruling why it doesn’t make sense in the context of when this law was made to have states decide.

Should a confederate state decide who is eligible to run? No, it should be the federal government

…or so they argue

[-] ech@lemm.ee 10 points 9 months ago

So we can just ignore the Constitution when the laws are outdated and don't make sense anymore? Cool. Let's do gun control.

[-] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 2 points 9 months ago

The Constitution says "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." SCOTUS isn't ignoring the Constitution for once.

[-] ech@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

Noteably, SCOTUS doesn't legislate, nor are they "Congress". If there is a law saying as much (states can't control primary ballots), though, sure.

[-] Ullallulloo@civilloquy.com 0 points 9 months ago

Yeah, SCOTUS can't remove a candidate for insurrection. The only way is if Congress passes a law describing who is.

[-] dalekcaan@lemm.ee 1 points 9 months ago

Of course not. Not when it suits them.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

Where did I say that we can just ignore the constitution? Hell, I’ve been downvoted to hell on Reddit for suggesting that rights to firearms is restricted for militias…

[-] ech@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

My comment is on the opinion, not on you.

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

I couldn't find a single legitimate reason in that decision to arbitrarily remove the power of the states or the democratic voters to remove a candidate based on very clear strictures in the Constitution, except for the implication that the conservatives would try to use this measure by claiming every valid candidate had somehow committed insurrection.

But conservatives already basically tried to do that with Biden with their "documents" case for more than 2 years now and it didn't work, they couldn't make even that relatively insignificant charge stick.

In this case, we have a judgment of a candidate liabile of an insurrection that directly violates the presidential oath of office thay previously took.

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 2 points 9 months ago

Notice I said confederate not conservative

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

It is hereby noted that 17 hours ago hddsx said confederate not conservative.

Someone give you shit about it?

[-] hddsx@lemmy.ca 0 points 9 months ago

You ignored the context of the civil war. It wasn’t about liberals or conservatives. It was about the federal government not allowing former confederate states to elect confederates into federal office. In other words, as determined by SCOTUS, this is the constitution explicitly taking power away from states and delegating it to the federal government. Thereby it is NOT a reserved right of the states and the people

[-] Varyk@sh.itjust.works 2 points 9 months ago

I haven't talked about the civil war at all, I think you're trying to respond to a different commenter.

this post was submitted on 04 Mar 2024
550 points (97.7% liked)

News

23655 readers
2654 users here now

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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS