[noir_lord]

In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant.

Almost every part of government is in isolation a single point of failure to someone with a tyrannical streak, it's why most democracies end up with multiple houses/bodies and courts - supposed to act as checks and balances.

So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.

[miki123211]

> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant.

But that is not how tyrants actually operate, at least most of the time.

The most tyrannical country possible would be a "free democratic union of independent people's republics". Democracy has been so successful that most tyrannies operate under its veneer. This is in stark contrast to how monarchies have operated historically.

The trick isn't to ignore laws, but to make them so broad, meaningless and impossible to follow that you have to commit crimes to survive. You can then be selective in which of these crimes you choose to prosecute.

You don't charge the human rights activist for the human rights activism. You charge them with engaging in illegal speculation for the food they bought on the black market, even though that was the only way to avoid starvation, and everybody else did it too. In the worst case scenario, you charge them with "endangering national peace", "spreading misinformation" or "delivering correspondence without possessing a government license to do so" (for giving out pamflets).

"must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest" is exactly the shenanigans tyrants love. You can get away with absolutely anything with a law like that.

[MangoToupe]

> In the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant.

Sure, but legislators should generally avoid explicitly building the on-ramp to such behavior.

[raw_anon_1111]

How has that been working in the US where both the legislation branch and judicial branch have willingly given their authority to the executive branch?

[noir_lord]

You would think the fact that I put "supposed to act as checks and balances." in my post would answer that but apparently not.

[hansvm]

> So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.

If an unchecked tyrant exists, do they really need the paper-thin facade provided by manhandling the English language to pretend that some law supports their actions?

[vlovich123]

Yes because tyrants still value the symbolism of pretext.

[XorNot]

This is just making a slippery slope fallacy by circuitous means.

The point of all laws and thus the courts is that each new action provides an opportunity to debate and decide on whether an action is lawful, and thus determine whether it should proceed.

You are arguing that all such decisions would always be decided in favor of the tyrant because they're a tyrant ala a slippery slope: the law exists, all things will be declared lawful, ergo all things are allowed with no further challenge.

This can certainly be true, but it doesn't naturally follow.

[vlovich123]

Show me a tyrant that doesn’t have rules and laws. Turkey, Saudia Arabia, Iran, China, North Korea, Sadam Hussein’s Iraq, and Russia still have law creating and law enforcing bodies. A good chunk of those countries even hold elections.

Hell, even in medieval England the king didn’t have absolute authority and had to worry about political alliances abcs political support of the other nobles.

You should go read the dictator’s handbook. Think about it from the perspective is the tyrant - there’s one of you. How do you establish control over groups of other people? Just ordering people around doesn’t work. You need to create a power base. You can go broad and give riches back to the people or narrow and give riches to people who have power and influence already. Dictator’s generally go the latter route because you’re not at the whim of changes in political mood and individual problems can be managed easily. But you still need to tap into symbolism and other institutions to lend yourself legitimacy to avoid uprisings.

[xorcist]

It sounds like you completely agree with the comment you replied to?

[exe34]

in that case they can just vote in whatever law they want or they can hold starving kids hostage and forbid anybody from helping - I don't think this law in particular will make any of it worse.

[rolph]

give a man a shovel, and a treasure map, but dont tell him he is digging his own grave.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Yes. That has been a problem. Several states outright ignored the scotus Bruen decision.

[Retric]

Yea a Supreme Court ruling 110 years after a law passed only for them to reverse course 2 years later. Surely that’s based on the constitution and nothing else.

[SV_BubbleTime]

Is your argument that you should only listen to Supreme Court judgments that you agree with?

Or is it that they have some settling in time before you need to actually pay attention to them?

[hamdingers]

How would you expect checks and balances to work when a single party controls all the branches? Is this a serious comment?

[raw_anon_1111]

It seems strange (or maybe you are just young) that you think this. But both Democratic and Republican controlled Congresses have fought against excesses of their own President. The same is true for the Supreme Court in the past ruling against an administration of its own party.

There was an entire coalition of “Blue Dog Democrats” that came from red states as recently as 30 years ago.

Or did you really forget that even in Trumps first term that Republicans like McCain voted against Trump snd 10 voted to impeach him?

[hamdingers]

The party is MAGA and that party is pro-dictatorship. The behavior of republicans decades ago is irrelevant, and it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term.

Perhaps it's you who haven't been paying attention? I find older people have a lot of unfounded faith in these failing institutions, but if you try to keep up you'll see this isn't the same America you grew up in.

[raw_anon_1111]

Yes way back in 2016-2020 when dinosaurs ruled the earth.

[hamdingers]

> it's obvious that MAGA has learned lessons from Tumps first term

Read all the words in a comment before replying to it.

[ryandrake]

2016 might well have been 1916. The state of US politics is night and day different now.

[jeltz]

And 2021 was when the republicans decided to protect Trump after his half-assed failed coup attempt. He should have been locked up but the republicans decided to protect him.

[acdha]

How many Republicans were purged from party leadership after they didn’t vote to shelter Trump from the consequences of attempted election theft? His first term you had Romney, McCain, Cheney, etc. in Congress and a lot of people in his administration like John Kelly who had various lines they wouldn’t cross.

https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/22/politics/trump-fascist-john-k...

Those people have all been purged. Any instinct you have for what Republicans will do which is older than 2021 is now actively misleading your judgement.

[usefulcat]

I get (and partly agree with) the point you’re trying to make, but do consider that the fact that Trump was ever elected at all, let alone twice, is really not helping your argument.

[gosub100]

> The party is MAGA and that party is pro-dictatorship.

remember the "sanctuary city" thing? That kind of blind obeisance to the tribe and defiance to the federal government smells awfully like what MAGA does today.But let me guess: it's okay when your tribe does it?

[wredcoll]

So this is a fascinating example of left vs right thinking.

To those on the left, why you do things matter. Breaking a law that is widely regarded as unjust is considered to be a moral action as long as it helps people.

The difference is being able to understand that "defying the federal government" is neither an absolute moral good nor is it an evil. Why you're doing it is the more important reason.

[cestith]

The “sanctuary city” label was applied to local governments doing what local governments are supposed to do. There’s nothing in the US Constitution which forces cities, counties, and states to enforce Federal laws. That’s why there are Federal law enforcement agencies, and more of them than most people know.

The FBI, CBP, ICE, US Postal Service, USDA, the Park Service, the Secret Service, the US Marshalls, the Marine Fisheries Service, USACID, US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Office of Odometer Fraud Investigation, Administrative Office of the United States Courts Office of Probation and Pretrial Services, Tennessee Valley Authority Police and Emergency Management, DEA, ATF, all the departmental offices of Inspectors General, and a whole bunch more account for over 130,000 officers with powers of arrest (and usually armed, or will otherwise partner with armed agents from somewhere else).

Cities and counties should be enforcing city, county, and state laws. They are not political subdivisions directly of the federal government, and their taxes and resources should be spent on their own jurisdictions.

[amanaplanacanal]

From what I can tell, all Sanctuary City means is that locals will not cooperate with federal law enforcement unless it is legally required. Which seems right to me? States are independent entities with their own laws.

[raw_anon_1111]

They just said they won’t be deputized to do something that’s the federal government’s responsibility any more than a city government is responsible for going after federal tax evaders.

[Spooky23]

Municipal government does not have any power, obligation nor responsibility to enforce federal law.

Lowering themselves to be federal snitches, they reduce compliance with state and local laws which actually impact the public, and create a variety of other problems that hurt the community. Where does it end? Should states investigate purchases that may enable the violation of federal law? You realize that there’s almost no limit to what can be technically constructed to be a federal felony. Why is immigration so special?

To conservative thinkers, sitting behind their keyboards in the cushy suburbs, the concept of states’ rights ends with the oppression of minority voting and pillaging of the environment. Anyone, regardless of politics, who is comparing that legal concept to support of the lawlessness the regime is carrying out should really look within.

[bdangubic]

sanctuary cities are there partly due to government trying to be (just a little bit :) ) lawless… if ruling party was obeying the laws there wouldn’t be any need for “sanctuary cities” so pick another example

your “tribe” in particular is *all about State rights” unless of course States do what the Tzar doesn’t like, right?!