4 ms·

Isn't the law to be enforced? It is terrifying that the public want such laws in the first place, but that is the democratic right for them to choose, I guess.

Melting_Harps 2y ago
[flagged]
- randomdata 2y ago
  Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it?
  - Voultapher 2y ago
    There are very clear laws that if you partake in a coup to overthrow the government, as Trump has done, you don't get to be part of the government ever again.
  - Melting_Harps 2y ago
    > Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it? Judicial branch, specifically in the court of NY has delayed sentencing in order to appear 'impartial' and reach a proper outcome on his legal fate [0]. Whcich is apparently a direct correlation from the Supreme Court's outcome on Presidential immunity. People got all worked up about their rulings but did nothing that mattered, in fact if this presidential race proved anything is that they want a despot in power rather than a mediocre former DA or a nearly senile old man. Ultimately, it shows that Democratic Republics are not just capable of one-off anomalies, his first presidency, but that they tend to skew this way over time. I'm less mad about the outcome of this election then I am with the electorate that saw these people do what they did during COVID and not follow thier own laws and inside trade etc... while not demanding a better system! I'm not sure you will get the answer you want, but this is only possible because of a complicit Supreme Court can install itself as permanent interpreters of the Law for Life and are appointed for mainly political influence and money rather than competence or merit. The Founders (for all their wisdom) were explicit in the framing of this country for what were essentially the landed gentry, so why wouldn't it work out like this after wealth and status had been concentrated in such few hands? 0: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/judge-delays-trumps-sentencing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/judge-delays-trumps-...
rsynnott 2y ago
Not if the courts found it to be unconstitutional, no. The US is peculiar here in that, when laws are found to be unconstitutional, some states just kinda… keep them.
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  Taking it off the books takes work, either political or by testing the law in court. That does not mean the law is valid, but in practice it can sometimes require serious litigation and lost years and money to prove that it's invalid.
foldr 2y ago
Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.
- randomdata 2y ago
  > Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a good idea. > Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights. Sure, it is not unusual for a population to instil safeguards to protect themselves should they become too focused on a particular issue without considering the bigger picture. Of course, the very same population can throw it all away at will. But we're still talking about a population who, even if they have forgotten the bigger picture, have enacted and maintain desire to retain laws around sodomy. What is going on there?
  - foldr 2y ago
    Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex. I will not argue with you about the validity of that position as it's a tangent. The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :) It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.
    - randomdata 2y ago
      > Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you? > and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made. > Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made. > You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place? You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

Melting_Harps 2y ago

[flagged]

randomdata 2y ago
Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it?
- Voultapher 2y ago
  There are very clear laws that if you partake in a coup to overthrow the government, as Trump has done, you don't get to be part of the government ever again.
- Melting_Harps 2y ago
  > Which law prevents a convicted felon from running for and/or winning the presidency race and why are those currently tasked with enforcement not enforcing it? Judicial branch, specifically in the court of NY has delayed sentencing in order to appear 'impartial' and reach a proper outcome on his legal fate [0]. Whcich is apparently a direct correlation from the Supreme Court's outcome on Presidential immunity. People got all worked up about their rulings but did nothing that mattered, in fact if this presidential race proved anything is that they want a despot in power rather than a mediocre former DA or a nearly senile old man. Ultimately, it shows that Democratic Republics are not just capable of one-off anomalies, his first presidency, but that they tend to skew this way over time. I'm less mad about the outcome of this election then I am with the electorate that saw these people do what they did during COVID and not follow thier own laws and inside trade etc... while not demanding a better system! I'm not sure you will get the answer you want, but this is only possible because of a complicit Supreme Court can install itself as permanent interpreters of the Law for Life and are appointed for mainly political influence and money rather than competence or merit. The Founders (for all their wisdom) were explicit in the framing of this country for what were essentially the landed gentry, so why wouldn't it work out like this after wealth and status had been concentrated in such few hands? 0: https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/judge-delays-trumps-sentencing/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2024/09/06/politics/judge-delays-trumps-...

rsynnott 2y ago

Not if the courts found it to be unconstitutional, no. The US is peculiar here in that, when laws are found to be unconstitutional, some states just kinda… keep them.

actionfromafar 2y ago
Taking it off the books takes work, either political or by testing the law in court. That does not mean the law is valid, but in practice it can sometimes require serious litigation and lost years and money to prove that it's invalid.

foldr 2y ago

Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights.

randomdata 2y ago
> Would you have the same reaction if a state had outlawed heterosexual sex? Yes, I would equally question the logic of a population who thought that was a good idea. > Most constitutional democracies recognise, one way or another, that there are limits to what can be legislated circumscribed by people's fundamental rights. Sure, it is not unusual for a population to instil safeguards to protect themselves should they become too focused on a particular issue without considering the bigger picture. Of course, the very same population can throw it all away at will. But we're still talking about a population who, even if they have forgotten the bigger picture, have enacted and maintain desire to retain laws around sodomy. What is going on there?
- foldr 2y ago
  Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex. I will not argue with you about the validity of that position as it's a tangent. The point here is that the US and most other democracies don't work like that. Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. But I suspect that you hold this position largely because it enables you to give a cute "yes" answer to my rhetorical question :) It's also a bit unclear what you're actually calling for here. Are you really in favor of anti-sodomy laws being enforced unless and until they are repealed? This isn't an academic question. Real people's lives would be destroyed were this to happen.
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > Ok, you can hold to the position that no-one has a fundamental right to enjoyment of their sexual and romantic lives I could, but why would I? Then I'd be among the very people I'm questioning, which would then question why I would need to question myself? You've not thought this through, have you? > and that governments can pass arbitrary laws restricting sex Yes, technically a democracy can pass whatever arbitrary laws it wants. Laws are not some magical force, just agreements people have made. > Any law banning heterosexual sex would surely be struck down as unconstitutional. Only if the people are willing to uphold the constitution. It too is not some magical force, just another agreement people have made. > You, presumably, would be the lone voice in the wilderness insisting that the crazy law ought to be enforced on democratic grounds. Under a democracy, the law is to the will of the people. Why do the people of the USA want sodomy laws in the first place? You might be right that that the USA is well on its way to having a dictator who can become the lone voice who controls all, without concern for what the public wants, but that is not the current state of affairs and that individual most certainly won't be me.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]