• Pronell@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    312
    ·
    edit-2
    7 months ago

    Until there are some kind of real penalties for submitting unconstitutional legislation, we will not be able to stop these clowns from abusing our state legislatures.

    • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      137
      ·
      7 months ago

      Seriously I’ve said it before if you’ve backed legislation found to be blatantly unconstitutional you should be removed from office.

            • NielsBohron@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              edit-2
              7 months ago

              I’d argue that those were two separate clauses and aren’t related.

              Bigots and billionaires don’t have to be a detriment to humanity

              They could do positive things for society

              My compost pile has plenty of room

              I have space in my yard to increase the amount of compost I produce.

              Those two clauses are separate statements, IMHO. A non sequitur, sure, but unrelated, nonetheless

      • jumjummy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        7 months ago

        Until you get clowns like we have in the Supreme Court shooting down women’s healthcare rights and this too becomes weaponized against the Democrats because those rights are somehow “unconstitutional”.

        • TowardsTheFuture@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          7 months ago

          I say blatantly which would be different in legalese but basically, if it is directly without need for interpretation such as saying gay people cannot be teachers which is directly discriminating against sexual orientation, then you’re out. Meanwhile if it’s later found to be unconstitutional due to interpretation or implementation such as stop and frisk then you’re not removed, though any laws copying said law that was already found unconstitutional WOULD then cause you to be removed because duh we’ve been here before.

          Edit: also, only said outed from office and not banned as if it’s used to remove people they could still be voted back in with a special election or whatever, similar to what happened with jones/pearson being removed using bullshit.

    • cannibalkitteh@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      36
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago

      It really should have to pass some form of nonpartisan review before being able to be introduced. I hate that as a private citizen, I have to track possible legislation and make time during the day to tell them that it’s clearly unconstitutional, have them pass it anyways, and then wait between 2-10 years for the courts to tell them (maybe).

      • gdog05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        7 months ago

        Informally, I believe this has been resolved by having the state attorney general sign off on most legislation as to its constitutionality. In my state, the attorney general is a shitheel. But, he has called out anti-gay legislation as blatantly unconstitutional and a waste of time and money. The lawmakers want headlines and ALEC money. They don’t give two shits about it being lawful or costly or harmful.

          • gdog05@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            7 months ago

            If I insinuated they could block it, that wasn’t my intention. It is basically a check without teeth. They can make a stink about it and a recommendation to the governor before signing but they have no legislative power.

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        some form of nonpartisan review

        Putting the legislation in front of my nonpartisan review board of Federalist Society Judges, Corporate Board Members, and Silicon Valley AI machines.

    • Neato@ttrpg.network
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      28
      ·
      7 months ago

      I’ve been thinking along the same lines for a while. If I call 911 and submit a knowingly false report, I get charged with a crime. If I submit knowingly false paperwork to the government, I can be charged with a crime or at least infraction and fined.

      But these people we elect who have entire staffs that are for making sure they always have enough information are submitting blatantly unconstitutional laws just to get them passed through a majority congress to be again and again shot down at the judicial level should really face consequences.

      Though I don’t know what that would be without it being used to easily punish political opponents. If there’s a law that does this and gives the judiciary more power, how will it be used when conservatives control those 2 branches?

      • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        If I call 911 and submit a knowingly false report, I get charged with a crime.

        There’s a long history of lynching and SWATing in America that suggests otherwise.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      7 months ago

      Until there are some kind of real penalties for submitting unconstitutional legislation

      Who Watches The Watchmen?

      Who gets to decide what constitutes “Unconstitutional Legislation” and dole out the penalties? The courts (stacked with conservatives)? The police (staffed with fascists)? The voters (caged until only the Republicans have a functional majority)?

      At some level, this is a popular movement of the Elect. It isn’t just Ron going off on a limb. He’s got enormous financial and social support from other like minded white supremacists.

      That’s not something you can combat without an organized opposition.

      • Pronell@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 months ago

        Yes, this is the danger of fascism playing with language.

        They aren’t trying to be logical or fair. They aren’t here for debate. They’re here to do what they want to do, period.

        Which is why they also inevitably fall apart, (eventually) they can’t even have that conversation internal to the movement and agree on what it is they want to do.

        • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yes, this is the danger of fascism playing with language.

          It’s more than that. It’s a power dynamic.

          At some point you need a large group of people in positions of power supporting a policy in order to enact it.

          Even reducing this down to liberal v conservative, you’re not going to find a political body favorable to liberals when it is stacked with conservatives.