Miniluv?
5 Likes
6 Likes
So basically if you’re a naturalized citizen you will not be able to run for office because you’ll be saddled by lawsuits that destroy you financially.
1 Like
im straying off topic. while i recongize it’s hazy territory for some, and different people will make different decision - id be very unlikely to vote for him.
it’d be a hard slam of the overton window to the right, and it’s not at clear to me bloomberg would bother fixing the things 45 has broken - bloomberg has his own priorities that a broken government helps with.
it’s not even clear he’d support democratic candidates in the house and senate considering he’s supported so many conservative politicians before
4 Likes
It’ll be costly to appeal deportation as well. They’re already making sure of it.
13 Likes
Hundreds of years earlier the Spanish used to make people do something similar to certify they were of “clean blood” (not descended from Jews or Moors) before they could emigrate to New World colonies. They were worried that people might get together to practice banned religions away from watchful eyes.
8 Likes
You believe laws like the sodomy law and others like it, should not be removed and just stay dormant until someone is hammer by them?
The supreme court overturned that a while ago…
So, that’s not a real problem that real people have to deal with right now. New laws supersede older laws, and supreme court decisions supersede unconstitutional ones…
Pretty much the only people who believe that legislatures need to “overturn” laws are right wing libertarians.
13 Likes
I’m about as far from a “right wing libertarian” as you can get and would much rather the legislature eliminate dangerous laws like sodomy before entire swaths of the population are abused or threatened using the laws until some poor sap finally makes it to the supreme court and is lucky enough to have their case heard and wins.
Remember that being gay was literally illegal until that case finished
Not to mention all the money they have to spend defending themselves:
1 Like
Maybe don’t use their talking points, then?
I got news for you, they already are. Congress should pass laws that protect human rights, not spend their time twiddling their thumbs looking for old laws to repeal. NEW laws often over ride older ones.
I’m quite aware. Those laws are now off the books, because that’s how our system (imperfect as it is) works.
9 Likes
In many states they’re not off the books. They’re unenforceable because of the constitutional issues, but another Supreme Court could effectively reinstate them by overturning Lawrence, without the state legislatures’ needing to take further action. A decision that a law is unconstitutional doesn’t repeal it.
2 Likes
Supremacy clause.
No, but it’s not enforceable, either. It would need to go back through the courts to the Supremes again. Doesn’t mean it can’t happen, but right now, these are not enforceable laws.
But AGAIN, the idea that we need our legislatures to spend their time getting government so small that it can be drowned in a bathtub is part of the right wing libertarian talking points. Full stop.
8 Likes
Many nazi war criminal identities weren’t exactly a secret and their naturalizations not an accident e.g. Wernher von Braun and most of his team at NASA.
3 Likes
Yes, the idea that laws should be repealed wholesale is a common RWA talking point. And the fact remains, in the “stopped clock is right twice a day” principle, that there are bad laws on the books, some of which are unenforceable, that ought to be repealed. (Starting, if you like, with a whole thicket of laws whose intent and effect is to criminalize poverty.)
While it is true that laws that have been found to be unconstitutional are unenforceable, that often doesn’t come up until arraignment of a person accused of violating them. Even if the cases are dismissed out of hand, they provide the nuisance of ‘you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.’ They can be used to harass the underclass and political enemies.
There’s more than one useful thing that a legislature can do, and ‘pass good law’ and ‘repeal bad law’ are both things I want to see happen.
And on the topic of my earlier posting, one positive law that would be useful would be to decree that US birth certificates are uncontestable after having been recorded in a municipality’s vital statistics bureau for a certain number of (months, years, we can argue about the details), so the argument that “Lupe the midwife recorded a bunch of fraudulent birth certificates thirty years ago, so we’re going to invalidate the lot of them” can’t be advanced. But there are exactly two chances that such a measure could pass any Senate that’s convened since the Missouri Compromise, except perhaps during Reconstruction before the Southern states’ delegations were readmitted. One is slim and the other is fat.
The original comment that started this was
This is why our legislature needs to spend their time finding bad laws to eliminate from the books way before comming up with new ones to pass.
Would you agree that following that, as written, would be a bad idea?
9 Likes
Yes. I would. I appear to have greater tolerance for hyperbole than some.
3 Likes
I have dealt with too many ayn-caps who genuinely believe that to treat it as hyperbole.
9 Likes
I mean, here in the US, we currently have the Senate sitting on hundreds of bills that they don’t want to deal with. They are gumming up the works specifically to make government functions seem inefficient so that more people get on board to dismantling our protections and rights as citizens. That is their goal, not to streamline government and remove unjust laws. They want nothing but unjust laws.
18 Likes
Let’s see if this targets only the worst of the worst with a concrete example: Donald Trump
Terrorist: check
War criminal: check
Sex Offender: check
Fraudster: check
Okay clearly this law will be applied without bias and get rid of only the worst of the worst.
6 Likes
Forgive me for trying to find a place to engage with the large minority of my countrymen who support that Senate. I’ve never been able to do that without at least finding some tiny aspect on which we can agree, no matter how benighted the other position.
I’ll concede that I haven’t had all that much success, but I don’t see a path out of the morass if we don’t keep trying.
