• mecfs@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    109
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s not gonna happen, we need 2/3rds of states, but when republicans block it, it sends a clear message who the wannabe autocrats are.

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      74
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      it sends a clear message

      eye-roll Need to stop pretending that Republicans are just being cutesy and cryptic, and recognize that large parts of the country fully endorse a fascist federal government.

    • ashok36@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      39
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 months ago

      Let them vote against it. Let them vote against all the popular ideas and see where that gets them.

      • A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        95
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        See where it gets them? It gets them right where we are now, with them on the precipice of turning the country over into a russian style dictatorship with billionaire oligarchs and their bought politicians running little fiefdoms?

        Have you not being paying attention to how fucking enthusiastic a not-insignificant chunk of the country is for fascism and enshrining their teams power as dominate and eternal?

        • Xanis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          24
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          tldr: Stop being blind in your tolerance. Start calling everything you see that is unjust and malicious out. Your freedom probably depends on it

      • Signtist@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        Most republicans I know believe that their party, like their country and their religion, needs to be followed blindly; if their party supports it, it’s good, and if their party rejects it, it’s bad. End of story. No more thought will, or should, be put into it.

        The people who go on and on about how America is the best because “freedom” are now working out whatever mental gymnastics they need to perform to justify voting for the man who said if you vote for him you won’t need to vote anymore. They already chose to support Trump and his party - nothing they say or do anymore will change that decision.

        • fine_sandy_bottom@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          2 months ago

          It seems like republican voters deeply believe that their way is the “right” way and they’re willing to do anything to impose it on the nation in perpetuity.

          I’m sure most aren’t really comfortable with trump, but they’re willing to overlook his rough edges if he can establish a republican government.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 months ago

        Let them vote against all the popular ideas and see where that gets them.

        That only works if people are paying attention.

        Increasingly, the general public are checking out of paying attention to the political circus.

      • exanime@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        They have been doing this for decades… sure, there was a time people just didn’t understand it. But they literally voted against cheaper insulin.

        I am not saying these bills should not be presented even if the Republicans will kill them, but the expectation that Republicans voting against thing that benefit the working class would eventually make their base shrink is a complete fallacy at this point.

    • AnIndefiniteArticle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress

      An amendment needs to be proposed by 2/3 of both houses of congress, or 2/3 of states can call a convention where any amendments can be proposed. Then an amendment needs to get 3/4 of states to ratify.

      If I’m reading this right, that is.

      So we need 2/3 of both houses of congress and 3/4 of state legislatures to agree. A large hurdle, but doable and necessary for our democracy. We’ve done it before, and now is a time in our history begging for amendments/reform.

      • candybrie@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        You’re optimistic about it being doable. Maybe if it was put to a vote in each of the states or maybe if it wasn’t currently relevant to one party’s head. But not put to a vote by the state legislatures. There only needs to be 13 state legislatures that say no to keep it from happening. The last time we passed an amendment was over 30 years ago and was just not allowing congress to give themselves a pay raise in the same term. Not a super contentious thing like presidential immunity when it the previous republican president is facing several criminal trials.

      • rhombus@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        It needs 2/3 of both houses to be proposed by Congress, but Congress has no power over ratification. The end of Article V is simply saying that Congress may propose one of the modes of ratification (by state legislatures or convention), not that Congress can unilaterally ratify an amendment.

    • mipadaitu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      2 months ago

      There are still other options if this goes nowhere. If they have the numbers, they can impeach the sitting justices and/or pack the court with more.

      Also, it’s possible that if the republicans see a string of back-to-back democrat presidents, maybe presidential immunity would be less popular. Especially after trump finally kicks the bucket.

      Of course none of this matters if the dems don’t win in November.

    • BigBenis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      2 months ago

      As if the Republican party isn’t already screaming that message loud and proud on the daily

    • crusa187@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      In another thread someone suggested we resize the court first, as an incentive for Republican states to embrace regulation and pass the amendment. Still need the supermajority, but it’s a great carrot/stick approach to get the job done or at least leave us in a good spot for a while if they want to be stubborn.

    • BigMacHole@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 months ago

      Agreed! Them voting Against this is a MUCH clearer Message then them Literally saying You Won’t Need To Vote Ever Again Because The Fix Will Be In!