• 0 Posts
  • 34 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 14th, 2023

help-circle
  • Laws override precedent. The court’s job is explicitly to interpret the laws made by congress. Precedent is simply the way that previous courts have interpreted the laws at the time. If the relevant laws to the case haven’t changed since the previous case, that is where precedent comes in. If there are new laws written by congress then those are more important than precedent.

    Another user brought up the idea that they might still try to rule the new law unconstitutional but that would be a much harder bar to achieve legitimately since the constitution is intentionally rather succinct. Of course if the court is corrupt and no one actually challenges their power I suppose they could say anything they want- precedent overrules laws, anything they don’t like is unconstitutional, for the low low price of a vacation getaway you too can influence my rulings, etc. But legally speaking laws override precedent and doing away with a law because it is unconstitutional is an extremely high bar which can’t realistically be met by the vast majority of laws unless the law directly goes against the few rules that the constitution establishes.



  • That explanation ignores the “fix it” comment. Even being extremely generous and going with the line of thinking that you proposed and further adding that by “fix it” he meant that he would fix all of the problems of our country within the next term, that would still require the assumption that he has no values for which he believes needs to be stood up for after next term. Or more specifically that he doesn’t think it matters who is elected in the future. While I do believe that he is extremely egotistical and to a certain extent doesn’t care about anyone else, I have a hard time believing that he would be equally okay with anyone being elected even after his presumptive second term. The only way that I can see any of these comments making sense is if he is talking about rigging or altogether doing away with elections.

    And to be clear I’m not trying to argue with you since I understand you aren’t saying you agree with the statement you made. I’m just pointing out that you would have to do much more mental gymnastics than even that in order to get to some sort of excuse for those comments.


  • Bills in the US can originate from either the house or the Senate. If it passes one then it goes to the other. If it passes both then it goes to the President to be signed into law.

    E: technically there is an exception that bills for raising revenue have to originate in the house but that the Senate can propose or concur with amendments. But for all intents and purposes the vast majority of bills can originate in either body.



  • It is very clear legally speaking. There is a clause specifically to address this issue in the constitution called the supremacy clause. The way that it works is that if there is a federal law that specifies something then it takes priority over state laws. Some of the things that you mentioned would fall into both federal and state categories like education where states have some control but must also abide by federal regulations.

    The only exception to this rule is cannabis and the only reason that it has worked this way is because cannabis reform is so widely popular across the US that if the federal government were to withhold funding or otherwise punish states for making and enforcing laws that go against the supremacy clause it would not go over well for the politicians that make that decision. They know that federal cannabis regulations truly are outdated and not in touch with our modern society. That being said, supremacy clause is still in effect and the federal cannabis laws are still absolutely enforceable even in states where cannabis is “legal”. The federal government simply chooses not to enforce those laws there most of the time.

    Child labor laws absolutely do not fall into that same category as the vast majority of people don’t believe that child labor laws are outdated. The waters are not muddy on this issue at all.


  • Senokir@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldLa-li-lu-le-lo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    23 days ago

    I didn’t say that EVERYTHING was well thought out. I also said that it makes no sense. But I do think that a lot (ie not all) of it was well thought out. Things like what you’re talking about are I would say extremely minor nitpicks in terms of the overarching plot and character motivations and that type of thing. Also, I find it hilarious that you say Big Boss since he was never pregnant as far as I’m aware lmao


  • Senokir@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldLa-li-lu-le-lo
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    23 days ago

    The MGS games make no sense in the ways that you’ve already pointed out, but at the same time there is a lot of very well thought out plot that does make sense in the context of the universe that he’s built.

    In short, lmao it makes no sense and it’s one of my favorite series.












  • Senokir@lemmy.worldtomemes@lemmy.worldIt must be a test
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    There is a big difference between getting a solid idea for what will happen before testing and literally being able to see the future as clearly as the present. If a software developer literally can see the future and already knows what error will occur if he tries to run the code then he would not run it. Or to use the engineer example, let’s say someone is creating a humanoid robot which is still in the early phases of development but the creator believes that it has just reached a point where it is able to sort of balance for a second. First of all, he can’t KNOW that it’s at that point without testing. And even if he has a very good idea that it is probably at that point he certainly won’t know exactly how it is going to fail eventually during the test. If the designer is all-knowing then he would literally know every force that is applied to the robot as it attempts to stand, the exact way that it will stumble down to the minutiae, etc. There is no reason, not for fun, not for learning, literally no logical reason to run that test in that case.

    I also agree that religion is a bunch of BS but if I were to try to come up with a justification to the question of why an all-knowing creator would test their creation, I would say that it isn’t for the sake of the creator but rather to teach the person they are testing about themselves or some BS like that. That being said, I think there are many many ways that you can poke holes in the logic of a creator being all-knowing, just, and all-powerful; all three of which are claimed by believers. Alternatively, you can also focus on the all-knowing aspect specifically by illustrating that it is impossible for free will to exist if god is all-knowing. At least not the version of free will that most people refer to. If you want to claim that free will can exist even if there is only one possible time line then that’s another argument.