🏳️🌈🖖🏽
The election in 2024 is a crucial one for our democracy and our rights. Abortion rights, in particular, are on the line. Men: Please speak up in support of women on this issue. We need to hear from you as well.
@georgetakei So why didn't the Democrats pass a right to choose law when they had the chance? They apparently saw this as a useful wedge issue.
🇳🇱
Ivebeen saying the same thing.. there is a reason they never proposed an amendment on the issue... because they WANT it to be a weak or non existant right so people have a reason to vote for them.
@freemo @georgetakei I suppose the same applies to R's on gun rights. Why haven't the Republicans put in some strong gun rights protection laws? Because the 2nd Amendment is something people will vote single issue on. Likewise reproductive rights.
Because we already have the strongest law and protection imaginable, there is literally an amendment that says that access to guns cant be infringed, it doesnt even mention the possiblity for exceptions.
The problem is theleft has largely ignored the amendment and violated it. This isnt the republicans fault.
Now abortion, for that there is no amendment and no real protections, unlike gun laws.
@freemo @georgetakei The Federal government could have imposed national concealed carry reciprocity under the Commerce Clause. So anyone who was legally armed in their home state could not be forced to disarm while traveling. That would be a good start. They have done enough absurd things under the Commerce Clause and been upheld, it would be hard to overturn that one.
The 2A already makes it illegal to infringe on the right to bear arms, that includes the right to carry them. So any laws like that shouldnt be needed if it werent for our really ass-backwards SCOTUS rulings.
Getting clarence on the SCOTUS likely already fixed that we just need some gun cases to make it back to SCOTUS for reconsideration. My hope is that the now republican SCOTUS will actually enforce the 2A as it should have been all along, that is, to strike down **all** laws limiting access and the right to bear arms.
@freemo @mike805 @georgetakei The Constitution was written by eighteenth century common law lawyers for eighteenth century common law lawyers. You can't just look at the words out of context to decide what the right to keep and bear arms covered and did not cover. It was never intended to be read that way.
No, if you want the definition of a law to change over time you need to legally get new amendments drafted that change it. Thats how all law has worked. They dont have expiration dates that automatically activate or anything so absurd.
Yea im not sure thats a perfect fix, but its not a horrible idea either. It certainly fixes the dependency creep issue :)
@freemo @BernieDoesIt @georgetakei Democracy is never going to be perfect. There needs to be something to prevent it from accumulating garbage until it crashes. That requirement would prevent a lot of the special cases and complexity. The law should be on a human scale - something that an ordinary lawyer can have a good grasp of.
@freemo @BernieDoesIt @georgetakei There is a reasonable case that all normal laws (not the Constitution) ought to have expiration dates. And should have to be read aloud at each renewal, with all the voting members present.
That would limit the total volume and complexity of law, and cause bad laws to expire if there was no will to renew them. Where laws did have expiration dates, like the Assault Weapons Ban, they do expire.
No more 1000 page laws that nobody has read.