• 0 Posts
  • 141 Comments
Joined 3 months ago
cake
Cake day: March 8th, 2025

help-circle








  • SaltSong@startrek.websitetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    15 days ago

    Italy was a constitutional monarchy under fascist rule.

    And the US is, theoretically, a democracy, and if we aren’t under fascist rule, we will be soon enough. Fascism can spring from any form of government.

    your second paragraph is something only ignorant bootlickers say

    So you feel that Obama-Trump-Biden-Trump was as stable as any government needs too be? No improvement to be made there?


  • SaltSong@startrek.websitetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    16 days ago

    The reason one has a constitutional monarchy is to try to split the difference, I think, and get the best parts of each system.

    But I’m with you. No kings.

    As it is we in the UK are stuck with a mind-meltingly wealthy, influential and unaccountable family who have extremely questionable members and histories.

    They influence laws to benefit their own ends, they shield abusive behaviour and individuals, and they do it all in the name of maintaining a tradition that fundamentally says that some people are simply “better” than others.

    We have these too. Is just that they are more unofficial.



  • SaltSong@startrek.websitetoNo Stupid Questions@lemmy.world[Deleted]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    16 days ago

    A constitutional monarch may have a wide range of powers, depending on the constitution. It doesn’t automatically mean “powerless figurehead.”

    Given the way the US has been recently, I’m willing to admit that there may be some benefit to having a leader in some position of power that had been there a long time, and has, more or less, been training for the responsibly since birth.

    Of course, there are plenty of arguments against such a leader, but the least of which is how much you have to stretch the word “training” to make it fit that sentence above.




  • I’ve explained it to you twice. I’m going to use small words, this time.

    “States rights,” is the right of the state government to pass it’s own laws.

    The right to fight a law in the courts belongs to individual persons, not the state government. If the state government disliked a law, they would not go through the courts, they would just change the law.

    “States rights” are for the state government, not the people of the state. Nothing the state government does to the people of that state can go against the rights of the state government, because the people do not have states rights, because they are not states.

    Just so we are clear, you are not a state, are you? If you happen to be New Jersey, for example, I could understand your confusion.






  • . . . What exactly do you think “starts rights” means?

    Because it refers to the right of states to pass laws for their own inhabitants, and the federal government had no right to interfere except in the specific cases the constitution says that it can. In this case, Texas is trying to pass laws for its own inhabitants, and trying to keep the federal government from interfering because the constitution doesn’t specifically call out this area for federal oversight.

    Setting aside for a moment their specific goal, this is exactly in line with their stated value of “starts rights.”

    Republicans do plenty of terrible things to criticize them for, and they never miss a good chance to be hypocritical, but it’s odd that you’re calling them out for hypocrisy on one of the very rare cases when they are not.