Misquoting the Constitution in a transparent attempt at justifying Constitutional violations?
Why does this sound familiar?
this post was submitted on 21 Jun 2024
148 points (98.1% liked)
News
23014 readers
5 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
God damn it. Stop summoning the Sherman. Last time someone did that everyone caught on fire.
Yeah, I feel like I learned about this a long time ago and it didn't end well.
The "Utah Sovereignty Act," which went into effect this year, is what they claim allows them to do this.
The Legislature may, by concurrent resolution, prohibit a government officer from enforcing or assisting in the enforcement of a federal directive within the state if the Legislature determines the federal directive violates the principles of state sovereignty
Which... why even have a U.S. at that point? Just secede if you feel that way.
Just secede if you feel that way
The land doesn't even belong to them. Between the Bureau of Land Management, National Forests, Parks, National Monuments, National Recreation and Wilderness Areas the federal government owns over 70% of Utah.
Guess it's time to evict them eh?
"If they don't like it here they can get out" or something.
Where have I heard this one before?
Whoa whoa whoa, bringing history into this? What are we supposed to study and learn from that stuff instead of studying some book a polygamist pedophile wrote?
Simple, hold all federal spending for the state. Start moving all federal jobs out of the state, start a BRAC to close all military bases in the state.
Nah just declare that churches worth over $1 billion that are influencing politics are no longer churches and therefore no longer tax exempt. Utah will change their tune immediately.
I'm not shocked they're doing it, I'm just shocked they didn't use it to bring back polygamy too
They don't need to bring it back---Polygamy is still in the Mormon church. They believe in eternal marriages and after a civil (normal) divorce they won't let women remarry but men can marry again in the church. Same thing if your spouse dies.
Mormons expecting to go to heaven and meet all their wives up there.
Mormons expecting to go to heaven and meet all their wives up there.
That could be very awkward. Sounds like a sitcom idea that runs for 9 seasons yet no one remembers watching more than one episode.
Bring… back?
It was made legal in 2020. And seems to have made it illegal again in 2022, two years later.
TIL illegal things don’t happen
Mormons in Utah (a territory at the time) practiced polygamy, but the federal government made ending it a requirement for statehood. So since we're just ignoring federal laws now...
Still confused. Practiced?
Polygamous marriage was a religious rite in Mormonism, presented as a requirement to get into the best part of Mormon heaven (as an aside, Mormonism divides heaven into 3 main tiers, ranging from "totally cut off from God and everyone you ever loved but still better than life on Earth" to "you get to be God". And this is a simplification since the theology is wild). So when I say "practiced", it's just the usual terminology for when religious people do something dictated by their religion.
Technically, Mormon church leadership has disavowed polygamy, but like other people commented, they still teach that men can have multiple wives in the afterlife, and the current leader of the Mormon church has an... [interesting marriage at the moment (his second wife, so he fully expects 2+ wives after he dies.)] (https://mormondisclosures.blogspot.com/2013/09/same-tract-attractions.html). The exmormon subreddit has more discussion about this, if you're willing to visit Reddit.
Was?
Utah is run by sovereign citizens, checks out.
Utah receives a lot of money from the federal government, totaling almost a third of their entire state budget. I guess they don't want it anymore?
I'm so tired of this! I've been asking someone DESPERATELY to Shoot up a room full of 6 year olds so I can FINALLY Pretend to care about the Constitution again!
Try fighting a civil war now, red states. See how far you get against contemporary weapons.
Everyone who clamors for war has never experienced one. We’ve had peace for so long they don’t know what war means.
I don't clamor for war. Quite the opposite. I merely pointed out that the desire of accelerationists for civil war is poorly considered when faced with the reality of the USA's contemporary armed forces in my own sarcastic way.