this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
455 points (97.7% liked)

politics

19096 readers
3321 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

And so it begins...

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Bonifratz@lemm.ee 111 points 2 days ago (4 children)

Luckily, the process of repealing or changing an amendment likely won’t change anytime soon, even with a Republican trifecta at the federal level, as it requires overwhelming public support. As outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution, any such change requires at least two-thirds of the Senate and the House to agree on the modification, with that change then requiring ratification by a minimum of three-quarters of states in the nation.

I wouldn't be so confident. If the majority decides to ignore it, then a constitution suddenly holds very little weight. Remember how the Roman Empire was once a Republic, until someone decided it wasn't anymore? Remember how 1930s Germany was a democracy, until someone decided that had to end?

Trump might argue some weird logic regarding the 22nd and 12th amendment. Or he might just declare a state of national emergency because of a new migrant caravan or some such shit, and postpone elections indefinitely. If he tries anything of the sort, it will all come down to whose side the military is on.

[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 46 points 2 days ago (4 children)

What happens if they declare all democrats are enemies of the state and remove them from office and put their people in?

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 1 day ago

You mean the thing that they literally told us they were going to do?

They didn't actually mean that...

[–] ziggurat@lemmy.world 43 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] tehn00bi@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago

Project Gilead.

[–] TexMexBazooka@lemm.ee 12 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

You’ll probably get to find out in January 😊 that’s kind of the whole plan

[–] TheEighthDoctor@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Burn the senate building, arrest some democrat kid and say there is a deep state satanic conspiracy with the democrats to destroy the God Appointed Trump Presidency, throw fake news all over the place and call for another election and/or emergency bill that gives him unlimited power.

What is that thing about story not repeating itself but rhyming?

[–] peopleproblems@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yeah, and that fuckwits name was Paul von Hindenburg in Germany.

The fall of the Roman Republic was way more complex though wasn't it? Like the Senate killed Ceaser and then voted to give his son unlimited tenure as Commander In Chief? There's a lot to unpack there

[–] Bonifratz@lemm.ee 5 points 1 day ago

I didn't mean "someone" this literally. In both cases, many people were directly involved or allowed things to happen by not intervening.

My point was the more general one that a system of government only remains in place for as long as those who have the power want it to. (Whoever that may be: an elite, the people, the military, the clergy, some combination...) The US seems to be entering a phase where a big part of those in power wants to move from liberal democracy towards authoritarianism. If they turn out to have a stable majority and follow through with their plans, then the US Constitution won't be worth more than the paper it was written on.

[–] Dalvoron@lemm.ee 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Can he just run as someone else's VP and then the someone else abdicates or whatever? No messing with constitution required. Obviously requires a lot of trust though.

[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

No, the VP has to be eligible for the presidency. If for some reason they are not, then the presidency would roll to the speaker of the house.

[–] Dkarma@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] Bytemeister@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Rules still apply until they are selectively removed or ignored or re-interperted by the Supreme Court of Sycophants later. But as it stands right now, those are the rules.