• Spitzspot@lemmings.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Right, and per the opinion, Amendment 14 sections 3 and 5 specifically take rights away from the States to delegate for the federal government.

    • KoboldCoterie@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      This is a shit take. This ruling is not saying “Trump did nothing wrong”, this is specifically saying “States cannot unilaterally decide to remove federal election candidates from ballots”, which I completely agree with. As others have noted, it would open the doors to so much bullshit if this were allowed.

      The SC could come out tomorrow and say “We’re disqualifying Trump”, this doesn’t preclude that.

      • Maggoty@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        States remove federal election candidates for eligibility reasons all the time. Trump is yet again getting special treatment.

        • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          [citation needed]

          List one federal candidate a state successfully removed (that wasn’t convicted in a federal court, or died before the election.)

          Edit: I see the downvotes, but I don’t see a name. I thought this was a place for reasoned debate, but it’s as bad as r/politics where anything regarding the orange man is concerned.

          • Dem Bosain@midwest.social
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            9 months ago

            https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_candidates,_2020

            Every state has a different number of candidates on their ballot, because every state has different requirements to be on their ballot. Is this ruling going to require every state to accept every candidate? Even those with no chance of winning? Who should decide when someone has no chance of winning? (Silly question, it’s the state, of course.)

            • DigitalFrank@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              9 months ago

              States are generally free to decide their own candidates for State level elections.

              Federal elections are subject to Federal law and the Federal Constitution. A State just deciding someone is disqualified based on their interpretation is both unconstitutional and incredibly stupid. It was always going to SCOTUS and it was always going to be decided this way.

              Me, I don’t want to live in a country where ANY level of government can just decide you are guilty of something without due process. And that’s what these states tried to do. The mad downvoters lack critical thinking ability and are going off emotion.

  • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    9 months ago

    Good. Democracy means that it can be democratically dissolved. If you’re holding on to a piece of paper written by slave owners to save your democracy, then you’ve missed the point of democracy.

    If a majority of voters want racist, sexist fascism, that’s what you’ll get. No amount of social media posts will change that. Ask the slaves, Indigenous Peoples, women, poor men, non-Christians, and children of the United States for the majority of its history.

    Vote. And get others to do it too. Change people’s minds–and, no, posting on social media isn’t changing anyone’s mind. You have to actually go out and do the work of talking to people, understanding them, and then changing minds. Yelling at people, digitally or actually, isn’t doing anything. Sorry.

    Now all the people that want to sit in their room doing nothing and act like it is doing something can downvote.

    It’s the only form of “democracy” you know: cheap and easy. “I NO LIKE.”

    • GeneralVincent@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      Well that would be great if we had a democracy. No Republican has won the popular vote for something like 20 years, but we’ve had more than one Republican president since then.

      Voting is super important, but we also need a better democracy because we know the majority don’t want a bigot in office. But we’re still getting one every couple years

      • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        9 months ago

        The United States is HUGE. Do you feel like population centers should get to dictate the terms to everyone that doesn’t live in a populous state? If so, then, again: vote. If you don’t like the current election process then change it.

        You Americans complain so much about your electoral processes, but you do nothing to change them.

        You get bigots and violent offenders in office either way you cut it. Obama normalized the massive, largely remote kill operations in non-battlefield engagements. He authorized the death of several thousand people exclusively through remote kill actions. As he noted himself, “turns out I’m really good at killing people. Didn’t know that was going to be my strong suit.”

        The popular vote for an overpowered executive isn’t the answer. And I think you know that. The answer is harder and requires more work. But it’s nice to think it’s just about voting once every four years to fix it, isn’t it?

        Good luck.