It’s now been made illegal to vote against Trump

[MNW67]

What are you blethering about? It was an example to demonstrate my wider point. If you don't think there are layers of unnecessary bureaucracy in law then, well, I don't know what.

What I am blethering about is that constitutional law is notoriously complex. It often goes back hundreds of years to Magna Carta. It is not something Elon Musk and his team of teenage coders can come in and change.

 

[MNW67]

Still requires checks and balances.

That is what I was trying to explain in my longer response further up. There is a system of checks and balances.

 

[Deleted member 265726]

Isn't there a Soros affiliated District Attorney in Tennessee that they're trying to disarm and get rid of?

 

[Lirefighter]

In this case, it isn't actually about voters directly. It is about legislators (I am assuming local councillors) being imprisoned because they vote for a particular council policy. I think that is pretty scary.

Would it be scary if the council policy was to publicly sacrifice a person chosen a random from the electorate once a month, and the federal government did nothing to stop it?

 

[MNW67]

Would it be scary if the council policy was to publicly sacrifice a person chosen a random from the electorate once a month, and the federal government did nothing to stop it?

I think you are missing the point. It is always fine for the appropriate next tier of government to take enforcement action against any law. In the example you give, it would probably be the state government. And I imagine they would apply for an emergency injunction from a judge to prevent the first sacrifice from going ahead. But that is different to jailing the councillors who voted to pass the law. In a democracy, the general rule in constitutional law is that any legislative body can make any law it wishes.

 

[Lirefighter]

Yes, and they have done just that.
They are the legislative body and they have made this law.
What next?

 

[MNW67]

Yes, and they have done just that.
They are the legislative body and they have made this law.
What next?

I am not clear what you are asking? But if you are asking me what is wrong with jailing your political opponents just for voting in a particular way, then I would repeat everything I have written in this thread about it being abhorrent in a healthy democracy.

 

[Lirefighter]

Would they jail their political opponents if they committed a crime that warranted a prison sentence?
You've just stated in your earlier post that a legislative body can make up any law it likes.
And they have.
This is now the law.
If a state official votes (not past tense) in favour of sanctuary policies they will be commiting a federal offence.
That is the law.

 

[fillyboy]

Would they jail their political opponents if they committed a crime that warranted a prison sentence?
You've just stated in your earlier post that a legislative body can make up any law it likes.
And they have.
This is now the law.
If a state official votes (not past tense) in favour of sanctuary policies they will be commiting a federal offence.
That is the law.

Starmer would have his opponents banged up for posting about it on Facebook.

 

[denso13]

That is the law.

No one is disputing that. It is a bad law that jails opponents for not agreeing with you.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I was being sarcastic Jeez gullible doesn't being to cover it on here sometimes ...

Caught out, you mean.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

No one is disputing that. It is a bad law that jails opponents for not agreeing with you.

Tends to be banana Republic places usually.

 

[carmanmemoranda]

What I am blethering about is that constitutional law is notoriously complex. It often goes back hundreds of years to Magna Carta. It is not something Elon Musk and his team of teenage coders can come in and change.

Unless it suits the new dictator

 

[carmanmemoranda]

I am not clear what you are asking? But if you are asking me what is wrong with jailing your political opponents just for voting in a particular way, then I would repeat everything I have written in this thread about it being abhorrent in a healthy democracy.

It's abhorrent to any right thinking person.

 

[MNW67]

Would they jail their political opponents if they committed a crime that warranted a prison sentence?
You've just stated in your earlier post that a legislative body can make up any law it likes.
And they have.
This is now the law.
If a state official votes (not past tense) in favour of sanctuary policies they will be commiting a federal offence.
That is the law.

First of all, it would not be a federal offence. This law has been passed by the Tennessee state legislature, so it would be a state offence.

As for the rest, I believe we are talking at cross purposes. But I will try my best to disentangle everything.

As you correctly say, the law is now that if a city councillor votes to adopt sanctuary policies then they will be committing a (state) felony punishable by up to six years in jail. I am not disputing that the law is valid. What I am saying is that jailing your political opponents because of the way they vote is abhorrent. And I mean abhorrent as a matter of principle. In exactly the same way that sacrificing a random virgin every month is abhorrent.