4 ms·

Proof once more that the enemies of Democracy can be both foreign and domestic. > The democracy movement isn’t just history but is also actively taught in scho

Proof once more that the enemies of Democracy can be both foreign and domestic. > The democracy movement isn’t just history but is also actively taught in schools as part of national identity. Education is the beginning. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." [1] > Conservative leaders now have to choose between democratic principles and party loyalty. To choose party (or any other) loyalty over democratic principles and the constitution is treason. For any voters to support such a party implies a deep failure to instill democratic principles and knowledge of history. [1] _ https://www.monticello.org/exhibits-events/blog/eternal-vigilance/ https://www.monticello.org/exhibits-events/blog/eternal-vigi...

wakawaka28 2y ago
>To choose party (or any other) loyalty over democratic principles and the constitution is treason. For any voters to support such a party implies a deep failure to instill democratic principles and knowledge of history. Being loyal to one's party is something they all do (except for a handful of people who may very well be turncoats). You can't reasonably interpret hiring "loyalists" to positions that you have every legal right to fill as anti-democracy, in general, because everyone does it. You certainly wouldn't expect someone to tolerate disloyal and disobedient subordinates if they had the choice, would you? There needs to be some discretion but many jobs are promised to supporters long before any election.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 2y ago
  Loyalty above the law is corruption. You can't have a modern state without some degree of loyalty to the concept of the democratic state itself, over and above personal ties.
  - wakawaka28 2y ago
    I'm not suggesting that anyone should break the law. (There are some rare circumstances where that is justifiable, but I'm not getting into that right now. It's basically irrelevant.) I sense that someone is trying to connect the South Korea wannabe dictator to one of our political parties, and it's not even close to comparable. Call me when the Bill of Rights is suspended or something.
    - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
      Does the 14th amendment count? Or only the first ten?
      - wakawaka28 2y ago
        Anchor babies should not be a thing, so no I don't care if an illegal immigrant family with an anchor baby is deported. There is some debate as to whether the popular interpretation of the 14th Amendment is even correct to begin with, as it was obviously intended to grant citizenship to ex-slaves and not criminal aliens.
        nradov 2y ago
        A child born in the USA is not a "criminal alien" regardless of the circumstances of their birth. There is no federal criminal law against being born. The parents could be legally classified as criminal aliens in some cases but that has no bearing on the child as a legally separate person.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        As a child is dependent on its parents, they must go with their parents. I don't think they automatically deserve citizenship just because their parents happened to sneak into the country, and their parents shouldn't be given a pass just because they dared to break our laws to get in and drop a child on us.
        2y ago
Yeul 2y ago
The Dutch constitution very clearly states that man and woman are equal. Yet we have small ultra orthodox Christian party in parliament who take a literal interpretation of their Bible. Amusingly they swear allegiance to said constitution on the Bible... The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions. I suppose one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really.
- heresie-dabord 2y ago
  > The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions. The Dutch do many things better. ^_^ > one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really. I agree that it is usually so... until they start making public policy.
- boroboro4 2y ago
  Having something as a law (or even part of a constitution) shouldn’t necessary forbid conversation about it? I’m not sure where the line should be disqualifying the conversation.

wakawaka28 2y ago

>To choose party (or any other) loyalty over democratic principles and the constitution is treason. For any voters to support such a party implies a deep failure to instill democratic principles and knowledge of history. Being loyal to one's party is something they all do (except for a handful of people who may very well be turncoats). You can't reasonably interpret hiring "loyalists" to positions that you have every legal right to fill as anti-democracy, in general, because everyone does it. You certainly wouldn't expect someone to tolerate disloyal and disobedient subordinates if they had the choice, would you? There needs to be some discretion but many jobs are promised to supporters long before any election.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 2y ago
Loyalty above the law is corruption. You can't have a modern state without some degree of loyalty to the concept of the democratic state itself, over and above personal ties.
- wakawaka28 2y ago
  I'm not suggesting that anyone should break the law. (There are some rare circumstances where that is justifiable, but I'm not getting into that right now. It's basically irrelevant.) I sense that someone is trying to connect the South Korea wannabe dictator to one of our political parties, and it's not even close to comparable. Call me when the Bill of Rights is suspended or something.
  - amanaplanacanal 2y ago
    Does the 14th amendment count? Or only the first ten?
    - wakawaka28 2y ago
      Anchor babies should not be a thing, so no I don't care if an illegal immigrant family with an anchor baby is deported. There is some debate as to whether the popular interpretation of the 14th Amendment is even correct to begin with, as it was obviously intended to grant citizenship to ex-slaves and not criminal aliens.
      - nradov 2y ago
        A child born in the USA is not a "criminal alien" regardless of the circumstances of their birth. There is no federal criminal law against being born. The parents could be legally classified as criminal aliens in some cases but that has no bearing on the child as a legally separate person.
        wakawaka28 2y ago
        As a child is dependent on its parents, they must go with their parents. I don't think they automatically deserve citizenship just because their parents happened to sneak into the country, and their parents shouldn't be given a pass just because they dared to break our laws to get in and drop a child on us.
        2y ago

Yeul 2y ago

The Dutch constitution very clearly states that man and woman are equal. Yet we have small ultra orthodox Christian party in parliament who take a literal interpretation of their Bible. Amusingly they swear allegiance to said constitution on the Bible... The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions. I suppose one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really.

heresie-dabord 2y ago
> The high court has repeatedly over the last 150 years ruled that the constitution> all gods and religions. The Dutch do many things better. ^_^ > one could take a principled view that religious folk commit treason but honestly they're pretty harmless really. I agree that it is usually so... until they start making public policy.
boroboro4 2y ago
Having something as a law (or even part of a constitution) shouldn’t necessary forbid conversation about it? I’m not sure where the line should be disqualifying the conversation.