417
The Supreme Court Has Itself to Blame for Texas Defying Its Orders
(www.theatlantic.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 29 Jan 2024
417 points (97.7% liked)
politics
19159 readers
4548 users here now
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
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
deleted by creator
Can we PLEASE, in the Trump / Brexit era, recognize how baseless accelerationism is? Have we not learned the lesson of
"Once these people do this terrible, stupid thing, they will realize how terrible & stupid it is"
-is completely false? And in fact tons of people will double down on the stupid terrible thing? They'll double down so much that they'll gladly swallow horse dewormer & bleach, and not get vaccinated, and literally die drowning in their own fluids before admitting that maybe that wasn't such a good idea?
I live here, in the thick of it, and honestly you could probably just tell most of them succession happened and it worked and everything is fine now and they'd probably believe you, and the crazy part is, they'd never notice because they likely expect nothing to change in their completely unaffected by anything ever in their entitled as hell daily lives
Not on Lemmy, because accelerationism is a core value for fake leftist trolls.
It's possible to do illegal things.
I don't live in Texas, can I start a petition for them to secede?
https://www.newsweek.com/texas-secession-question-2024-ballot-1848890
deleted by creator
Which is pretty whack. I don't in any way endorse what the Texas government is doing with the border, just to get that out of the way. The idea that a state isn't free to seceed is completely ridiculous. One can not rightfully claim the U.S. is a free country if the states are not free to leave the union. This idea that once you're a part of the union, you're apart of the union forever is a gang mentality that has no place in a free society.
A unilateral secession is illegal. If the others state agree to let you go, you can. Exactly the same as joining: the current states have to vote on whether to let you in. It makes a lot of sense. States joining or leaving on a whim creates major instability for the nation government. Having a fairly high bar for it is a good idea.
Right, so you can only leave if we say you can leave mentality, which is a kind of gang mentality. To say that a state that feels it's membership in the union no longer aligns with its values (whether you agree with their reasoning or not) cannot choose on its own to leave in no way aligns with the values of freedom and autonomy.
If you want to advocate for such a system, fine, but it would be dishonest to then turn around and say that this system is one that values freedom.
At it's most basic, freedom is the ability to say no and to disassociate with those you no longer wish to associate with.
You're applying personal freedom to a state of millions of people, which is nowhere near the same thing. People can do whatever the heck they want. States can't, because they're infrastructure for millions of people's lives. Infrastructure does not get stalk angrily out of the room in a huff.
I would have to disagree. States are just groups of people. They can hold all the rights that people hold, but cannot hold any rights people don't hold (since those people cannot grant a right they themselves do not have).
I struggle to see how it can be deemed acceptable to tell a state they can't leave because it may have a negative effect on the rest of the union. This is saying that once you join the union, you are a hostage of the union. Any negative effect this has on the rest of the union is not the responsibility of that state. If the union would benefit from continued use of infrastructure in the departing state, they can try to work out an agreement around that, or the union can figure out a way to fill the gaps left in infrastructure, but it makes no sense to hold the state hostage for the sake of saving the union from the hardship.