Because being a fringe lunatic insurrectionist fascist is forgivable. Left or right, everyone either assumes Trump is so bad or so good that he is beyond criticism.
Same as it ever was. No one, left or right, expects the Republicans to change or get better.
Ooh sorry this is a weird one it’s actually “wugopodes”
Ok, I didn’t ask that, though. That is a completely different discussion that no one is having.
Ok but they are administering and moderating their instance according to their political beliefs about a specific nation. They’re not defending China’s economic policies at Tiananmen Square or their notions on tariffs with Uyghurs. I don’t think you answered the question in the way you think you did.
What’s that got to do with censoring some discussions about some countries?
I don’t know that I’d agree that the political beliefs of the lemmy.ml admins are lemmys greatest strengths. Certainly federation amd open source contributions are core to lemmy but support of a specific nation’s policies and actions certainly is not.
Mods and admins have enormous power to shape what can be discussed using comment moderation tools, bans, and promoted content. At the very least you should be aware of what potential biases an admin has that may inform how they moderate.
So far that hasn’t really been tested in court, and when it has (Trump v. Anderson) it’s not been upheld in that way.
Look I’m not saying I like it. I’m saying it’s not really that straightforward.
Those are not the minimum qualifications. They should be read as “anyone who meets them is eligible” rather than “no one who fails to meet them is eligible.” The Rehnquist court found that states could not add a felony exclusion for Congressional candidates in the 1990s and that is broadly considered to extend to the Presidency as well. https://www.oyez.org/cases/1994/93-1456
If the constitution doesn’t say it, it’s not typically intended to be assumed true. The constitution doesn’t say that felons can’t be president - so we can’t assume that the states or congress could pass laws forbidding them from being president. It specifically says you can’t be president if you’re 34 or were not born a US citizen. If the writers wanted to exclude felons, they would have said so.
Yes. The constitution is actually shockingly specific about what the qualifications are. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5:
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
No other qualifications can be considered, barring a Constitutional Amendment.
Well you see consistency is a requirement for my opponents. \s
Yep it’s a great one. Knowledge Fight talks about JBS all the time as well
Others have weighed in on the academic, but a lot of the American conservative braintrust is (literally) in think tanks like the Heritage Foundation, Federalist Society, John Birch Society, etc. These organizations vary from “pretty right wing” Heritage to “nearly literally fascist” John Birch Society, and they put out a LOT of papers and material they use to…I’ll generously say “inform” the public discourse.
It used to be cheeky fun. Now it’s Alex jones and alt-right.
No this is the opposite of what I wanted
How do I unread a post
I mean in the literal sense the president is commander in chief of the armed forces. Disobeying their orders is defying their constitutional authority.
The issue is obviously more complicated than that just-so story. My point is not that if the president says to shoot the speaker of the house, soldiers must do it or they are behaving unconstitutionally. My point is that the president has the authority to direct the military to do things, and when the president uses that authority to undermine democracy in the US that act is a constitutional crisis because it pits two branches of government against each other in an irreconcilable way.
You say that but that isn’t how it would happen.
There would be months or years of prep work, spreading propaganda that Canada was the source of our woes, that they were wronging us. By the time we invaded there’d be just enough “legitimate discourse” about the invasion that the Presidents supporters could claim any effort to stop him was political.
There was a time not long ago where people said you couldn’t do lots of things or you’d get thrown out - then Trump did many of them, even got impeached (twice!) and stayed in office. In practice, these limits are at best inconvenient for a dedicated lunatic.
But that’s the crisis right? The president would almost never say “go violate the constitution.” They would say “go arrest and occupy Congress, THEY violated the constitution “
Yes, this is probably the real motive. “Arrest and execute my political opponents” cannot be ignored by the military without a coup or being in dereliction of duty. I think another nefarious change here is not that the actual power has changed but that the Supreme Court has given face value validity to illegal acts. The President has always has unmitigated pardon power for federal crimes. They could order the military to commit illegal acts and pardon them preemptively so that they were not punished. A reason why that hasn’t happened is that the optics of that are horrifying - the President and military must admit to a crime being committed to pardon that crime. With this ruling there is no admission, no face value legal wrongdoing, and plenty of plausible deniability.
SCOTUS knew precisely what they were doing. This is a significant expansion of presidential power, yes. But they know that the real issue is political. What they want is the President to be able to argue that illegal things are legal because the President did it, instead of arguing that illegal things are not punishable because the President pardoned the criminals.
The President can literally shoot someone in cold blood, in public, and as long as they can deem it an official act it is de jure legal.
You might be asking why the right isn’t worried that Biden will abuse this - the answer is because they know he doesn’t have the balls. The left still thinks we’re in 1968 fighting for rights with mostly peaceful protests. We’re in 1938 and we’ve already lost.