this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2023
806 points (98.6% liked)

politics

19148 readers
1950 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  • Courts generally don't have jurisdiction to rule on internal House and Senate rules, so it would never come up for a real ruling from a court.
  • Arguably, the Constitution grants the House and Senate power to make their own internal rules, and expel/censure their own members, in a way that makes it so that the negative prohibitions in the Constitution (like the First Amendment) don't really apply to internal rules in the legislative branch.
  • Government may regulate certain types of behavior, even if that behavior sometimes can be expressive speech, especially in regulating the time, place, or manner of that speech.
  • Government can sometimes regulate workplace conduct in government workplaces, without the full protection of the First Amendment. For example, plenty of governmental bodies prohibit political speech in the workplace, or the use of official platforms for private/political speech by an employee, or employees wearing their official uniforms outside of work to imply an official endorsement of a particular candidate.
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

We need to add Rule Zero to the constitution: All rules will be submissive to the rules that preceded them, excepting amendments abolishing them.

Bam, free speech is now in effect under all contexts. Also, you can carry a gun on the senate floor and in the oval office. That would probably get a gun amendment passed real fast

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Bam, free speech is now in effect under all contexts

I hope you realize that the First Amendment to the Constitution was ratified 3 years after the part of the Constitution that I'm describing, which is in Article I, before the amendments.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Eh, I don't think chronological order is the right order for this. That makes historically older rules have priority over newer ones even if they're outdated. The second amendment is the obvious example of amendments being outdated. Even if you are all for gun rights, I don't think you can argue that the amendment was written with modern weaponry in mind (and indeed, nobody argues that the average person should be allowed to own a fully functional tank).

And coming up with a better priority list would be impossible in the current political hurricane, as nobody would agree on the ordering.