But this isn’t

  • TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 months ago

    Yeah but also the reliance on ‘norms’ is part of the problem.

    We relied on the ‘norm’ of R v W when no law was on the books stating otherwise.

    We’re relying on the ‘norm’ of a 2 term president when no law is on the books stating otherwise.

    We need to actually codify norms into something enforceable if we want them to have real meaning. Otherwise they are just opinions.

      • ignirtoq@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        4 months ago

        That’s part of what makes Trump’s talk of a 3rd term both ridiculous and terrifying. It would violate the Constitution, so a radical change to our country would have to happen for that to happen. All of our “inalienable rights” are guaranteed by the Constitution, so if they throw it away for a 3rd Trump term, they can throw it away for anything else they want. Want to go back to only white men who own land voting? It’s the Constitution blocking that. Making treason a crime? The Constitution. Once they break that, we’re hosed.

        • dil@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 months ago

          They’re already throwing out the Constitution. Fourteenth amendment says he’s ineligible to be president because of the insurrection.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            4 months ago

            That should have been a slam dunk impeachment conviction. That the discussion even gets to the 14th makes me weep for the country I thought I grew up in.

        • crusa187@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          This isn’t new at all, so if anything ignoring the 22nd is just furthering the current trajectory of decline imo. What happened to our “inalienable right” to privacy, supposedly guaranteed by the 4th amendment, after 9/11 and the ensuing bipartisan surveillance bill known as the Patriot Act?

    • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      4 months ago

      From a game theory perspective, it is impossible to create a system that is immune to bad faith actors. They will always find cracks to squeeze through. The people within the system have to proactively police against bad faith actors.

      • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        You can make a system thats immune- you just have to make they pay offs force a better result than being self interested. The mafia broke the prisoners dilemma by killing everyone that confessed - we should apply the same and execute Trump for attempting to breach the constitution for his own self interest. See how many people try again.

        • mozz@mbin.grits.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          The mafia is not famous for being able to provide a stable environment which is safe for the people within it who follow the rules and can scale up to hundreds of millions of people while keeping everything relatively safe and reasonable

          “We’ll just kill everyone who threatens us” is a tempting solution for a government that is under threat, but the historical examples of that strategy playing out well for anyone even over the short term are few and far between, even when it seemed pretty justified at the time

          • HappycamperNZ@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            4 months ago

            You’re right they aren’t, I was using it as an example. I’m not fully versed in UCMJ (think thats the right one) but as ex commander in chief Trump is a part of the armed forces, and the penalty for Treason is execution. Not asking a new law to come out, only a reminder that we have laws, and no one is above them.