No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Right, there's also a constitutional amendment saying insurrectionists can't stand for office
I really wish Biden had gone after him 10% as hard as he went after Sanders.
Biden is the chief executive I don't know why the courts had any say in executing a law that is already on the books. A strong president would have done his job executing the law and making the SC enforce their over reaching decision themselves.
Does it even matter? trump can get convicted of insurrection but the supreme court can just decide that he hasnt committed an act of insurrection based on their interpretation.
Whos gonna enforce their decision? Every cop and every corrections officer in the country are under the executive branch and answer to the president, not the judicial or legislative branches. What Biden tells them goes, no ifs ands or buts.
States run elections. Even if Biden were do try to prevent trump from appearing on the ballot, the states doesnt have to obey, especially if the supreme court's decision is contrary to the president's orders. And if trump appears on ballots, throwing him in prison wont do any good since if elected, as he did in our timeline, he becomes president on January 20th and can order the military to break him out of prison, whether state or federal prison.
And if the states somehow prevented trump from appearing on ballots, we'd be in a constitutional crisis and also a state vs federal government political crisis. Pro trump supporters will cite the supreme court decision as a rallying call to trump supporters around the country to protest, and use violence if necesary.
Well you might say, who cares what his supporters have to say. But the point is if the 14th amendment has a more clear procedures of how to invoke the part about insurrectionists being inelibible. trump could be barred from office and the prorests would've been minimal since the media would portay it as more legitimate. But unfortunately, the 14th amendment is so vague that the supreme court decision would paint a different picture in the media and in public opinion, making it seem like Biden is being tyrannical.
Well its a good thing Biden avoided seeming like a tyrant so that an actual tyrant could take power. That makes it make sense. Maybe I just don't have the money and comfort afforded to politicians and that's why I don't understand their decision making. Most of these ghould probably made a lot of money during the Trump years.
Biden is dont do things that seems unlawful. Because in his mind, he doesnt want to set an example for future presidents to reference and use that example to justify doing the same thing.
Also, how do you even prevent someone that wins both the popular vote and electoral college from becoming president? trump supporters would riot and even non-maga military officials would have to recognize trump as the next president.
The thing about democracy is that we all agree to let the person winning take office. Otherwise its just civil war to determine who is the leader.
You seem to have the impression that the US is a Defensive Democracy like in modern day Germany than can ban anti-democratic parties, but the US is not that. The US is a "whoever wins takes office" type of democracy, whether they are pro-democracy or a fascist. We would need to change the whole US culture about democracy if we want to become a Defensive Democracy.
So then what does the insurrection clause of the 14th amendment do? Just paper filler? If someone was under 35 it wouldn't matter how many votes they got for president, if someone wasn't a naturalized citizen it wouldn't matter how many votes they got. Im not asking for antidemocratic things to be banned, im asking for the law to be followed. Is the law always secondary to popularity? If I was popular enough could I simply go assault whoever I want? Because it sounds a lot like you're arguing written law shouldn't matter when you're popular enough because of the type of democracy the US is.
I'm gonna reiterate what I wrote in another comment:
Basically, the people who wrote the 14th amendment didn't specify how the ineligibility clause is invoked. Because it could be interpreted in a lot of different ways. Is it:
A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.
B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection, then they become inelligible.
C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection, then they become inelligible
D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.
E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection, and they become inelligible.
Because the problems are:
A is just dumb,
B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.
C also allows partisan shenanigans
D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.
E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection. Not to mention, it'd require enough evidence to convince a jury to convict for something serious like insurrection.
So yea they should’ve been more specific. Because the vagueness gives the supreme court the legitimacy to interpret it the way they want to.
Too bad people who wrote that didn't specify what it meant.
Like does it mean:
A. If popular opinion deems a person commited an act of insurrection, they are inelligible.
B. Congress passed a resolution that deems a person have committed an act of insurrection
C. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person have committed insurrection
D. The person gets charged with committing an act of insurrection.
E. The person gets convicted with committing an act of insurrection.
Because
A is just dumb,
B would allow a republican controlled congress declare a democratic candidate inelligible. Basically its just partisan shenanigans.
C also allows partisan shenanigans
D is presuming someone guilty, bad idea.
E trump has only been convicted of state charges of fraud, not anything involving insurrection.
So yea they should've worded it better on what it means.
It should be E and the DOJ should have made sure that this was handled in a court of law in the first 100 days. Or maybe even a specialised tribunal for insurrection.
How did they handle the insurrectionists post civil war?