this post was submitted on 10 Feb 2025
985 points (99.6% liked)

politics

19928 readers
3266 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

This is the very essence of the difference that should exist between a President and a King. From Federalist 69:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law. The person of the king of Great Britain is sacred and inviolable; there is no constitutional tribunal to which he is amenable; no punishment to which he can be subjected without involving the crisis of a national revolution. In this delicate and important circumstance of personal responsibility, the President of Confederated America would stand upon no better ground than a governor of New York, and upon worse ground than the governors of Maryland and Delaware.

The failure of the Republican party to support this kind of check on Presidential power is why we're having this crisis now.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] AltheaHunter@lemmy.blahaj.zone -2 points 1 day ago (2 children)

You're giving me the same line that always gets trotted out to defend historical bullshit. I understand the argument, I've heard it before, and I don't buy it. In the modern day (where we live and are conversing) the constitution has a history of blatant human rights violations. We should recognize and acknowledge that, not excuse it for being "from a different time."

[–] dustyb0tt0mz@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

i'm guessing altheahunter is a grateful dead reference. that's awesome. i'm an old deadhead too. as one to another, you can do better as a human being. the music is supposed to help teach a greater understanding.

[–] AltheaHunter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

As I said, I understand just fine. I'm just not willing to hand-wave away the unforgivable parts of our original constitution just so we can all feel warm and fuzzy about it.

[–] dustyb0tt0mz@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

yet here you are, trying to feel warm and fuzzy about your idealistic moral high ground.

[–] AltheaHunter@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

I think I've been quite the opposite of warm and fuzzy about it...

[–] dustyb0tt0mz@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours ago

it's just that, if you vilify everyone from the past for not living up to your modern standards, then how do the people just getting here learn from history? it can all be dismissed because they all had it wrong.

[–] Soulg@sh.itjust.works 4 points 1 day ago

Some of us can do both, you don't need to get aggressive just because you can't.