this post was submitted on 17 Apr 2024
101 points (97.2% liked)

politics

25176 readers
3532 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 59 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Blatantly unconstitutional.

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black famously stated in Everson v. Board of Education that “[t]he First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state,” and “[t]hat wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Government may not adopt or ban instances of religion.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[–] CraigeryTheKid@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They might argue the law only recognizes these books as official, and neither establishes religion or prevents others. "Argue" as in if it went to court, because either way it's definitely bullshit.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 23 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, that's probably right.

And then the Satanic Temple comes in with a lawsuit forcing Tennessee to "recognize" their literature as well for equality under the law.

As well they should

[–] billiam0202@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

Turns out, the current SCOTUS has a lot to say about precedence.

[–] themeatbridge@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

There are a lot of blatantly unconstitutional things that the SCOTUS is OK with.

[–] Zombiepirate@lemmy.world 44 points 1 year ago

Take heed that ye do not your righteousness before men, to be seen of them: else ye have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

Matthew 6:1

[–] CaptainPedantic@lemmy.world 36 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For those who don't know, like me, the Aitken Bible was the first English edition of the Bible published in the US. It was approved by the Congress of the Confederation (the government before the Constitution was signed) in 1782.

[–] gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world 9 points 1 year ago

Congress only issued an approval because the ongoing British blockade during the Revolutionary war was stopping Bibles from being imported how they had been previously and that was leading to protesters saying maybe this whole fight for independence isn't worth it. It was a wartime PR move.

Also worth noting that this approval happened years before the Bill of Rights was a thing.

[–] LEDZeppelin@lemmy.world 26 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We will soon have only 2nd amendment left in the constitution

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago

Half of the 2nd amendment.

[–] Atelopus-zeteki@kbin.run 16 points 1 year ago

Church and state? No, churchstate. Bad plan, we already did this.

[–] homesweethomeMrL@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Tennessee, man. Hit after hit lately. Arkansas is getting jealous.

[–] flicker@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Feels bad, man.