3 ms·

>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 failur

>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.
        pjc50 2y ago
        And people wonder why the birth rate is down when children are demonized this much.
      - yladiz 2y ago
        There is no debate, and framing it as such is disingenuous. The interpretation not “popular”, it’s been adjudicated in courts time and time again, for well over a hundred years, and there are basically no exceptions to the birthright clause of the amendment. Of course this doesn’t strictly guarantee the current Supreme Court will follow precedent, but given the fact it’s part of the constitution and not just a law, and that it’s been in multiple court cases with a lot of precedent, I assume they would reject that interpretation and make it clear to change it requires another amendment, which is extremely unlikely in the current government.

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.
        pjc50 2y ago
        And people wonder why the birth rate is down when children are demonized this much.
    - yladiz 2y ago
      There is no debate, and framing it as such is disingenuous. The interpretation not “popular”, it’s been adjudicated in courts time and time again, for well over a hundred years, and there are basically no exceptions to the birthright clause of the amendment. Of course this doesn’t strictly guarantee the current Supreme Court will follow precedent, but given the fact it’s part of the constitution and not just a law, and that it’s been in multiple court cases with a lot of precedent, I assume they would reject that interpretation and make it clear to change it requires another amendment, which is extremely unlikely in the current government.