3 ms·

> Because the sketchy sedition hobbyists are the ones running Congress now. Yeah, ok... A website obviously isn't the Constitution nor the law. Dumb, over-se

by Alupis 1y ago

> Because the sketchy sedition hobbyists are the ones running Congress now. Yeah, ok... A website obviously isn't the Constitution nor the law. Dumb, over-sensationalized, rage-baiting hit piece. Move along...

mlhpdx 1y ago
Maybe. Or maybe it does signal intent. Either way it’s a valid reaction to a stupid edit.
- Alupis 1y ago
  This article is attempting to read into something that is much more likely nothing... some intern clicked the wrong button or whatever. Again, the website has zero impact on the law. It literally doesn't matter.
  - mason_mpls 1y ago
    Is there a delete habeas corpus button? The specific search the current administration happens to be hitting legal challenges on?
    - slowmovintarget 1y ago
      All of this heavy breathing leaves out that the edit also deletes the U.S. Navy, I mean, if it had any legally binding impact, which thankfully, a website does not.
      - throwanem 1y ago
        I've heard ideas I liked less. Let's give the damned airedales back to the Army while we're at it, hey? Buncha fancified cavalry-wannabe jagoffs, they've had swelled heads for fifty years.
      - mason_mpls 1y ago
        “Legally Binding” is determined by the courts. The process of overturning sections of the constitution start with claiming they were never there. The current admin spent months saying the 14th amendment essentially isn’t valid, so they could justify it to their base once they got SCOTUS to overturn birthright citizenship, despite it being plainly enumerated in the 14th amendment.
raverbashing 1y ago
Yes because it's fun to take legal texts and change them in interesting ways and post them to authoritative sites "It's just a prank bro"
lwansbrough 1y ago
Yeah why would an administration that is doing mass illegal deportations without due process want to remove freely available information on Habeas Corpus from their websites? Clearly dumb and very sensationalized! Nothing to see here!
- Alupis 1y ago
  Because it's not published in a million other places? Because it's now officially not the law because it's not on this one particular website? Come on people... you're being rage-baited to hell.
  - lwansbrough 1y ago
    You keep harping on the point that the laws haven't changed. Nobody is arguing that. But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Should they not expect to find the full text on the official government website for the constitution? If I search "US constitution" and congress.gov is the first result, am I dumb for reading that source and believing that is the full text? If I am detained illegally by ICE and I try to inform myself of my constitutional rights through the official government channels, and am not informed of my right to due process, have I been successfully ragebaited?
    - Alupis 1y ago
      > But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Right, because the average person googles the constitution right away when they are arrested? What are you going to do with this googled info? Show it to the officer and get released? What reality is this even? Nothing on this website changes anything... so yes, you are being very successfully rage baited, to the literal max. Just look how outraged over nothing you are... getting all worked up over a website on a Wednesday afternoon. You'll probably stew on this all day, even complain to others about it. Rage baited, indeed.
      - lwansbrough 1y ago
nerdjon 1y ago
Under normal circumstances I could more easily give the benefit of the doubt on this, but the reality is we are not living in any amount of normalcy as far as this administration is concerned. Of course removing this does not change the law, but this is still an official place for people to view these documents. Could it have just been someone making an honest mistake? Yeah of course. Has this administration already been deleting other important information from government websites and this could have been on purpose? Also yes.
roughly 1y ago
I get the feeling you're one of the people who's going to be telling me I'm overreacting while we sit shackled together on a bus to Guatemala, where surely there are lawyers waiting for us.
- panarchy 1y ago
  "You should be grateful we're getting a free vacation to a nice country with lovely weather. Do you libs ever stop complaining?" /s
  - roughly 1y ago
    "Technically this isn't illegal, because we've got an extradition treaty with Guatemala, and the court said Trump needed to show evidence in a trial before flying people out, but we're on a bus, not a plane, so really this isn't violating any laws, so it's hard to really call this executive overreach. Also, there's no law specifically saying the court trial needs to be in an American court room, plus the ICE-built adjunct to the Guatemalan embassy is technically American territory, and the local immigration judge was officially appointed by Congress in a secret session to protect his identity, and of course you can't let media in the room for a closed session. None of this is actually illegal, so I don't know why you're being so hyperbolic."

by Alupis 1y ago

mlhpdx 1y ago

Maybe. Or maybe it does signal intent. Either way it’s a valid reaction to a stupid edit.

Alupis 1y ago
This article is attempting to read into something that is much more likely nothing... some intern clicked the wrong button or whatever. Again, the website has zero impact on the law. It literally doesn't matter.
- mason_mpls 1y ago
  Is there a delete habeas corpus button? The specific search the current administration happens to be hitting legal challenges on?
  - slowmovintarget 1y ago
    All of this heavy breathing leaves out that the edit also deletes the U.S. Navy, I mean, if it had any legally binding impact, which thankfully, a website does not.
    - throwanem 1y ago
      I've heard ideas I liked less. Let's give the damned airedales back to the Army while we're at it, hey? Buncha fancified cavalry-wannabe jagoffs, they've had swelled heads for fifty years.
    - mason_mpls 1y ago
      “Legally Binding” is determined by the courts. The process of overturning sections of the constitution start with claiming they were never there. The current admin spent months saying the 14th amendment essentially isn’t valid, so they could justify it to their base once they got SCOTUS to overturn birthright citizenship, despite it being plainly enumerated in the 14th amendment.

raverbashing 1y ago

Yes because it's fun to take legal texts and change them in interesting ways and post them to authoritative sites "It's just a prank bro"

lwansbrough 1y ago

Yeah why would an administration that is doing mass illegal deportations without due process want to remove freely available information on Habeas Corpus from their websites? Clearly dumb and very sensationalized! Nothing to see here!

Alupis 1y ago
Because it's not published in a million other places? Because it's now officially not the law because it's not on this one particular website? Come on people... you're being rage-baited to hell.
- lwansbrough 1y ago
  You keep harping on the point that the laws haven't changed. Nobody is arguing that. But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Should they not expect to find the full text on the official government website for the constitution? If I search "US constitution" and congress.gov is the first result, am I dumb for reading that source and believing that is the full text? If I am detained illegally by ICE and I try to inform myself of my constitutional rights through the official government channels, and am not informed of my right to due process, have I been successfully ragebaited?
  - Alupis 1y ago
    > But how would the average person access the text of the constitution? Right, because the average person googles the constitution right away when they are arrested? What are you going to do with this googled info? Show it to the officer and get released? What reality is this even? Nothing on this website changes anything... so yes, you are being very successfully rage baited, to the literal max. Just look how outraged over nothing you are... getting all worked up over a website on a Wednesday afternoon. You'll probably stew on this all day, even complain to others about it. Rage baited, indeed.
    - lwansbrough 1y ago

nerdjon 1y ago

Under normal circumstances I could more easily give the benefit of the doubt on this, but the reality is we are not living in any amount of normalcy as far as this administration is concerned. Of course removing this does not change the law, but this is still an official place for people to view these documents. Could it have just been someone making an honest mistake? Yeah of course. Has this administration already been deleting other important information from government websites and this could have been on purpose? Also yes.

roughly 1y ago

I get the feeling you're one of the people who's going to be telling me I'm overreacting while we sit shackled together on a bus to Guatemala, where surely there are lawyers waiting for us.

panarchy 1y ago
"You should be grateful we're getting a free vacation to a nice country with lovely weather. Do you libs ever stop complaining?" /s
- roughly 1y ago
  "Technically this isn't illegal, because we've got an extradition treaty with Guatemala, and the court said Trump needed to show evidence in a trial before flying people out, but we're on a bus, not a plane, so really this isn't violating any laws, so it's hard to really call this executive overreach. Also, there's no law specifically saying the court trial needs to be in an American court room, plus the ICE-built adjunct to the Guatemalan embassy is technically American territory, and the local immigration judge was officially appointed by Congress in a secret session to protect his identity, and of course you can't let media in the room for a closed session. None of this is actually illegal, so I don't know why you're being so hyperbolic."