4 ms·

> lawmakers voted 71-10 That’s pretty wild you can just to shut down the operations of two news organizations that don’t tow the official line. Democracy thoug

> lawmakers voted 71-10 That’s pretty wild you can just to shut down the operations of two news organizations that don’t tow the official line. Democracy though I suppose. Would it be legally possible in the US?

austin-cheney 2y ago
In the US it would require a constitutional amendment that survives judicial review. You have better odds of winning the lottery twice in a row.
- hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
  What review can any part of the judiciary do of a constitutional amendment? Even if the amendment authors explicitly say "we're doing this to enrich ourselves and screw over everyone else", once it's part of the Constitution...isn't it a done deal?
  - jkaplowitz 2y ago
    There is one restriction on what amendments are valid, but nothing related to this discussion. No amendment can remove a state’s equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Otherwise, anything goes. The judiciary can, of course, still review whether an amendment was validly proposed and ratified, and therefore whether or not it is in fact part of the constitution.
    - hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
      Thanks, that's an interesting restriction. Where does it come from?
- java-man 2y ago
  "The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- Henry Kissinger
- sschueller 2y ago
  Even under Marshal Law?
BugsJustFindMe 2y ago
> Would it be legally possible in the US? If 88% of all federal and state lawmakers in the US were on board, it could be done, but it would take more time and a few more steps to amend the constitution first. Unrelated, "tow the line" is a misspelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line
- miles 2y ago
  Thanks for the "tow the line" note. I would've picked "toe the line" as the eggcorn; even after reading the Wikipedia entry, it still looks less natural to me.
black6 2y ago
The US doesn't need to shut down journalistic operations. The success of Operation Mockingbird makes that unnecessary.

austin-cheney 2y ago

In the US it would require a constitutional amendment that survives judicial review. You have better odds of winning the lottery twice in a row.

hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
What review can any part of the judiciary do of a constitutional amendment? Even if the amendment authors explicitly say "we're doing this to enrich ourselves and screw over everyone else", once it's part of the Constitution...isn't it a done deal?
- jkaplowitz 2y ago
  There is one restriction on what amendments are valid, but nothing related to this discussion. No amendment can remove a state’s equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Otherwise, anything goes. The judiciary can, of course, still review whether an amendment was validly proposed and ratified, and therefore whether or not it is in fact part of the constitution.
  - hn_go_brrrrr 2y ago
    Thanks, that's an interesting restriction. Where does it come from?
java-man 2y ago
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- Henry Kissinger
sschueller 2y ago
Even under Marshal Law?

BugsJustFindMe 2y ago

> Would it be legally possible in the US? If 88% of all federal and state lawmakers in the US were on board, it could be done, but it would take more time and a few more steps to amend the constitution first. Unrelated, "tow the line" is a misspelling. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toe_the_line

miles 2y ago
Thanks for the "tow the line" note. I would've picked "toe the line" as the eggcorn; even after reading the Wikipedia entry, it still looks less natural to me.

black6 2y ago

The US doesn't need to shut down journalistic operations. The success of Operation Mockingbird makes that unnecessary.