American Politics XI: No Moe Roe(Likely, Anyway)

[The Jamesian Republic]

By two cents is this:

I don't think you understand this idiom.

Do you people predicting the end of the United States as we know it really have a plan to escape or has the doom speaking fairy visited you?

I don't think you understand references to moving to Canada either. When people say something like "If Trump wins again I'm moving to Canada", they don't mean that they think the US will collapse into a civil war or something, they just mean "If Trump wins I'll be really mad".

Okay.

[Deblar]

You sure? Case was later overturned, but you get my point.

ok and when the side you so firmly want to bar from the ballot or throw in jail starts doing it to your candidates you don't get to say a word.

Again, it's defensive democracy. It would inherently keep them out of power and not give them a chance to pull the Uno reverse card.

[Ifreann]

Imprisoning people for conspiring to violate the basic rights of millions and millions of people is not, in fact, authoritarianism.

Ok lets deny ballot access to or arrest any elected official who is pro life. Don't complain then when the same thing happens to people on the other side.

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily authoritarianism to overthrow the government and put people in prison for having tried to take away people's basic rights.

[San Lumen]

ok and when the side you so firmly want to bar from the ballot or throw in jail starts doing it to your candidates you don't get to say a word.

Again, it's defensive democracy. It would inherently keep them out of power and not give them a chance to pull the Uno reverse card.

Good luck doing that and not further increasing the divide and tensions. What your saying is you want a one party state where only people who agree with you are allowed to run. That's not democracy.

[San Lumen]

Ok lets deny ballot access to or arrest any elected official who is pro life. Don't complain then when the same thing happens to people on the other side.

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily authoritarianism to overthrow the government and put people in prison for having tried to take away people's basic rights.

What would you charge them with?

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily authoritarianism to overthrow the government and put people in prison for having tried to take away people's basic rights.

What would you charge them with?

high treason

[The Jamesian Republic]

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily authoritarianism to overthrow the government and put people in prison for having tried to take away people's basic rights.

What would you charge them with?

Since the crime is taking away basic rights from the people I would (though I’m not supporting this) Crimes Against Humanity.

[San Lumen]

What would you charge them with?

high treason

What you want to charge them with treason for is not the definition. Here is the US constitutional definition of treason: treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

high treason

What you want to charge them with treason for is not the definition. Here is the US constitutional definition of treason: treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

high treason is whatever the guys in charge says it is

[Ifreann]

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone. I'm saying that it isn't necessarily authoritarianism to overthrow the government and put people in prison for having tried to take away people's basic rights.

What would you charge them with?

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone.

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone.

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone.

I'm not proposing to imprison anyone.

Jesus fucking Christ, Lumen, it's the first fucking sentence of the post.

[San Lumen]

What you want to charge them with treason for is not the definition. Here is the US constitutional definition of treason: treason is specifically limited to levying war against the US, or adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.

high treason is what the guys in charge says it is

No it is not. That is the constitutional definition. You can't just charge anyone you don't like with treason.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

high treason is what the guys in charge says it is

No it is not. That is the constitutional definition. You can't just charge anyone you don't like with treason.

and yet the GOP will do it once they get their way. Your constitution is only as much worth as the effort invested in defending it after all.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

high treason is what the guys in charge says it is

No it is not. That is the constitutional definition. You can't just charge anyone you don't like with treason.

you can if you have the ability to decide what the constitution says

[San Lumen]

No it is not. That is the constitutional definition. You can't just charge anyone you don't like with treason.

and yet the GOP will do it once they get their way. Your constitution is only as much worth as the effort invested in defending it after all.

They can't change the constitutional definition of treason.

No it is not. That is the constitutional definition. You can't just charge anyone you don't like with treason.

you can if you have the ability to decide what the constitution says

Congress and state legislatures don't have that power.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

you can if you have the ability to decide what the constitution says

Congress and state legislatures don't have that power.

SCOTUS does... and who's in charge of SCOTUS right now and for 20-40 years onwards SL?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

and yet the GOP will do it once they get their way. Your constitution is only as much worth as the effort invested in defending it after all.

They can't change the constitutional definition of treason.

you can if you have the ability to decide what the constitution says

Congress and state legislatures don't have that power.

the Supreme Court does.

[San Lumen]

Congress and state legislatures don't have that power.

SCOTUS does... and who's in charge of SCOTUS right now SL?

How is SCOTUS going to change the definition of treason? Its crystal clear what it is. They cannot just rule treason is now disagreement with someone.

[Austria-Bohemia-Hungary]

SCOTUS does... and who's in charge of SCOTUS right now SL?

How is SCOTUS going to change the definition of treason? Its crystal clear what it is. They cannot just rule treason is now disagreement with someone.

they perfectly could, because they are the ones "interpreting" the constitution and just like the bible you can manage any favourable interpretation you want.

[Tarsonis]

Yeah lets start throwing people in jail because you don't agree with their policies. Totally not authoritarian and completely acceptable in a democracy.

Imprisoning people for conspiring to violate the basic rights of millions and millions of people is not, in fact, authoritarianism.

of course it is. It's just authoritarianism you agree with.

[San Lumen]

How is SCOTUS going to change the definition of treason? Its crystal clear what it is. They cannot just rule treason is now disagreement with someone.

they perfectly could, because they are the ones "interpreting" the constitution and just like the bible you can manage any favourable interpretation you want.

No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

SCOTUS does... and who's in charge of SCOTUS right now SL?

How is SCOTUS going to change the definition of treason? Its crystal clear what it is. They cannot just rule treason is now disagreement with someone.

why not?

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

they perfectly could, because they are the ones "interpreting" the constitution and just like the bible you can manage any favourable interpretation you want.

No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.

yeah, and?

[San Lumen]

How is SCOTUS going to change the definition of treason? Its crystal clear what it is. They cannot just rule treason is now disagreement with someone.

why not?

I just told you why.

No they cannot. You'd have to bring a case before them first. The court cannot just issue rulings because they feel like it. That's not how the judicial system works in any country.

yeah, and?

Are you not reading anything im saying? Treason is what the constitution says it is. There is little room for interpretation or expanding it.

[The United Penguin Commonwealth]

why not?

I just told you why.

yeah, and?

Are you not reading anything im saying? Treason is what the constitution says it is. There is little room for interpretation or expanding it.

so?

[San Lumen]

I just told you why.



Are you not reading anything im saying? Treason is what the constitution says it is. There is little room for interpretation or expanding it.

so?

what do you mean so? Treason isn't something you can charge anyone you disagree with or don't like with.