974
Biden to announce plans to reform US supreme court – report
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
974 points (99.1% liked)
News
23397 readers
186 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
To be clear, this immunity obviously DOES NOT EXIST in the constitution and was invented out of whole cloth.
It's not like the constitution is some infallible magic text, it was also "invented" by some dudes.
It was also, at least according to Jefferson, intended to be replaced on a regular basis to better reflect the needs of the country.
Jefferson did write he wanted it remade every ~20 years. But that was a personal belief of his not the general understanding when the constitution was adopted.
While technically true, countries with a proper constitution that is upheld by the judiciary, legislative and executive branch of government tend to be much more stable.
It is good to amend the constitution if necessary, but the principle of there being a constitution and it being followed, is a very important thing for democracy.
I guess that's true and I certainly don't have anything against the concept of a constitution, but as someone not living in the US I find it pretty strange that so many Americans treat the constitution like some holy religious text.
That’s true, but I don’t think it invalidates anything about the post you replied to. It’s not a question of who invented what. The case is that the job of the founders WAS to invent the constitution and the structure of the government and all that.
The second group’s job is to read what they wrote and follow it. And sometimes there’s wiggle room in interpretation and settling that is their job too. But they don’t get to make up new laws and amendments just because the result of doing so is desirable for them.
The way they interpreted it was invented, but there was precedent in the constitution
There's also the question of how a law that would criminalize an enumerated power could be constitutional as applied as. That'd be voiding the Constitution by statute rather than amendment.
Which would require the president to sign off on but could be weaponized against an incoming president if one party has the legislature and executive.