politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
For a party that claims to love and respect the US Constitution, being filled to gills with "constitutional orginalists," I don't think any Republican has ever actually read the document. If they had even glanced over it, they would have looked at Article 6, Paragraph 2 also known as the "Federal Supremacy Clause." It's meaning is that law at the Federal level supercedes State laws and even state constitutions. The "Founding Fathers" intended for the Federal government to hold supremacy over the state governments... now it isn't written in plain English, but it is plain enough. Further, the end of our Civil War the court case Texas v White made it plain as day legally that no State may leave the union. Again, the party of "law and order" comes in clutch with that misunderstanding of what those words mean.
All that being said, succession isn't actually that popular (even in Texas). There would likely be a mass revolt against it in any state attempting it. Further, even a play at attempting it would be a political death sentence (as well as, perhaps, a literal one). Any insurrection against the federal government, even by a collection of contiguous states, would face a similar challenge the capitalists/monarchists (or Whites) of the Russian Civil War faced. The major population centers wouldn't recognize the authority of those in revolt and all they'd be left with would be the hinterlands and rural towns. Which is not a great position to be in strategically (again, see: the outcome of the Russian Civil War).
This is all not to mention, while States have their own National Guards, the insurrectionists would have to convince those troops to fire on troops who are wearing the same uniform. You'd have to convince their officers to break their oath to uphold both US law and face a possible death sentence if captured. I don't know Abbott's relationship with his National Guardsmen, but I highly doubt many officers will go in with him in this piece of political theater.
They just don't care - they're self-serving liars and grifters, and they know it. It's very simple.
I look forward to the possibility they'll fuck around and find out, but they'll likely just bully concessions out of Biden, who will be too afraid of being uncivil or disturbing the status quo to take action to uphold the rule of law and defend the constitution.
Even if they do sit down to "read" the constitution it would be similar to their bible studies. You have a pre-made conclusion that you dance around with some text to then just conclude what you wanted to and some cop out if there is a contradiction.
It's all in line with the principle underpinning fascism - rules are useful solely to protect yourself and subjugate those you don't like.