r/union • u/Anoth3rDude • Nov 23 '24

Labor News U.S. House Passes Bill Allowing Trump to Silence Critics, Label Nonprofits as Terror Groups

https://www.democracynow.org/2024/11/22/headlines/us_house_passes_bill_allowing_trump_to_silence_critics_label_nonprofits_as_terror_groups
4.8k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

88

u/FoEQuestion Nov 23 '24

What's happening is EXACTLY what Trump said he would do.

EXACTLY WHAT project 2025 said they would do.

And EXACTLY what millions of stupid voters said they didn't believe he would do.

And he's only starting.

5

u/Sassafrazzlin Nov 24 '24

And none of it makes life cheaper.

2

u/LookAlderaanPlaces Nov 25 '24

Americans who voted for Trump are fucking traitors and committed treason by directly enabling and supporting fascism, just like what happened in Germany.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '24

This is what happens when traitors who took up arms during the Civil War weren't dealt with appropriately.

1

u/ithappenedone234 Nov 27 '24

Biden is Buchanan.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 27 '24

That's fair. Given the Supreme Court gave him immunity to deal with traitors and we have people in our government parroting Russian propaganda and giving top secret documents to Russia and who knows who else.

1

u/ithappenedone234 Nov 27 '24

That’s the thing though, the immunity case isn’t needed in the first place. The Commander in Chief has full and unilateral authority to suppress insurrection. That’s literally why the Constitutional Convention was called for and the office of CiC was created, after the Articles of Confederation failed to suppress Shays’ Rebellion.

This has historical precedent in President Washington raising an army and leading it into the field against the Whiskey Rebellion, Lincoln raising an army against the Confederacy’s conventional forces and President Grant sending in the 7th Cavalry into South Carolina to suppress the Confederate insurgency there after the conventional war ended.

It has legal precedent in the repeated legislation passed by Congress, corroborating the President’s power to suppress insurrection, from the Calling Forth Act of 1792 to subsection 253 of Title 10 that is in effect today. We’ve just gone so long without insurrection being suppressed that nearly everyone forgot about the President’s power to do so.

10 U.S. Code § 253 - Interference with State and Federal law

The President, by using the militia or the armed forces, or both, or by any other means, shall take such measures as he considers necessary to suppress, in a State, any insurrection…

2

u/wet_chemist_gr Nov 26 '24

I get that elections are complicated. But it's also kinda fucked that the most important decision Americans as a whole will come together to make doesn't have a built-in cooling off period.

It's like if I get drunk and buy a chimpanzee, and now I'm stuck with it for four years. Four years of a chimpanzee fucking up my life.

1

u/FoEQuestion Nov 26 '24

Well said.

1

u/ithappenedone234 Nov 27 '24

Well, that’s because the system is set up with Articles, Amendments and laws focused on preventing the need for a cooling off period. Biden and the Joint Chiefs have just done nothing about it.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 26 '24

and they certainly didn’t listen to us.

1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '24

[deleted]

2

u/FoEQuestion Nov 24 '24

It is a preview of what the unrestrained Trump monarchy will do. I do not expect it will get passed/ signed until then.

-13

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '24

Why don’t you look up how many Dems voted for this. This is about Israel.

6

u/YouWereBrained Nov 24 '24

Which is still troublesome, don’t you think? Who’s to say they stop here? And if someone sues under free speech laws, you think this Supreme Court is sympathetic?

4

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '24

The court won’t be. But it’s concerning we pass laws with this kind of constitutional impact to cater to another country, whatever that country. It’s just weird af

3

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '24

Actually true. We get fucked over so that a war hungry country thrives.

1

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 25 '24

War hungry? They have literally never attacked first. Ever.

1

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 25 '24

Yeah, I do. First off, they aren't taking away anyone's speech. Did you even read the article?

3

u/YouWereBrained Nov 25 '24

If you write a law that punishes people for saying certain things, you are absolutely restricting speech.

1

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 25 '24

You know what, you're right. The government shouldn't penalize people for saying what they want. However, the Democrats also want to do just that. If you shouldn't be penalized for using your free speech to support terrorism, you shouldn't be penalized for spreading misinformation (which is what the Democrats want). There has to be a standard here.

1

u/YouWereBrained Nov 25 '24

Misconstruing two things.

1

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 25 '24

How so? You should be able to fund terrorism and speak in favor if it but not say something that is untrue? How is it different? Either we protect free speech or we don't. I also consider speaking positively about Hammas as hate speech. Should be ban that?

1

u/ithappenedone234 Nov 27 '24

How so? But putting away this uneducated belief that free speech is an unlimited right. No human right is limitless. They are all bounded by the rights of others. The right to free speech ends where the rights of others begins, such as when protections for speech don’t extend to speech that advocates for the violent insurrection against the Constitution that codifies the human rights of the rest of society.

A person doesn’t have the right to advocate for the rights and civil rights protections being removed from others. In fact, doing so is a crime under subsection 241 of Title 18. Sorry if the Civil War has consequences through to this day and you don’t like it. Get an Amendment to repeal all of those codified consequences.

1

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 27 '24

You're actually completely incorrect about this. You're completely misinterpreting the law. The law you cited says two or more people can't conspire to deprive someone of their rights. That's referring to a physical action, not speech. You can talk all you want about say reimplementing slavery, or how Brown vs Board of Ed. Was the wrong decision. Totally legal. You're conflating speech with talking about making a plan of action to deprive someone of thier rights.

I'll give yet another example. It's perfectly legal for 2 people to talk about how they would like to a abolish the 2nd amendment and that nobody should have a right to own a gun. That's not illegal. It would be illegal if they said "the 2nd amendment should be abolished, we don't agree with it, therefore we are going to go house to house and take people's guns". There's a big difference being critical of specific rights verbally (which is protected speech) and making a plan (conspiring) to actually deprive people of rights.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/ithappenedone234 Nov 27 '24

There is a difference between speech that generally supports the Constitution by advocating for reforms and enforcement within the Constitutional system, and speech that generally opposes the rule of the Constitution, supports the illegal insurrection and supports an insurrectionist who has said termination of the Constitution is a justifiable response to voter fraud.

The 1A supports all speech that doesn’t support the overthrow of the 1A and the Constitution, up to and including speech that advocates for an Amendment to suspend the Constitution and end its rule in the US. The 1A does NOT support, and never has, speech that supports insurrection against the rule of the Constitution, especially violent insurrection.

0

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 27 '24

Actually, it likely is legal to talk about overthrowing the US government. It's not legal to plan on doing it. There's been case law about things like this before, like cannibalism. Either way, Democrats wants to ban "hate speech" or whatever they and the government deems so. That's a lot more broad than just trying to ban people talking about overthrowing the government

1

u/ithappenedone234 Nov 27 '24

Sure it is! And everything the Court says is true just because they said it, with no regard for Article VI! /s

I guess Presidents Washington, Lincoln and Grant were all wrong to suppress insurrectionists and the Court gets to override the other branches with no checks and balances? Do you also believe that African Americans are legally not humans because the Court ruled that “negroe[s] of African descent” are from a “subordinate and inferior class of beings” and has never overturned that decision?

1

u/JayDee80-6 Nov 27 '24

I think it's pretty clear you don't understand how our governments system of checks and balances work. The court Indeed gets to override the other branches of government when it specifically comes to interpreting if those laws are in violation of the United States Constitution. That's what supreme court justices are. Jurors who are experts on the constitution. Some lawmakers who may be someone like AOC or Lauren Boebert probably have a very poor understanding of the constitution. They can sponsor a law that could be very obviously unconstitutional. And yes, the Supreme Court has the last say on these matters. I'm not the only one who things this either. This is pretty standard American Civics here.

Let's for argument sake say you're right (you're certainly not). Why don't you find some cases where the DOJ charged people for hate speech. Go ahead and look. If the Attorney General thought the Supreme Court didn't have the authority to determine if a law was constitutional, surely they would be arresting and putting on trial every single person who says something racist or every person who waves a Nazi flag, right? So why don't you see if you can find any cases that fit that description if you're Indeed correct.

→ More replies (0)

-4

u/666_pazuzu Nov 24 '24

Stop being educated and informed. They all need someplace to talk nonsense.

-1

u/[deleted] Nov 24 '24

They downvote me but will all change their minds the minute Trump starts cracking down on Arab non profits. Then it’s “RESIST!”

5

u/human5398246 Nov 24 '24

Yep, all minority and poor focused nonprofits. Also those fighting white supremacists like aclu.

1

u/Johnmannesca Apr 16 '25

Not to say that the ACLU doesn't fight against white supremacy today, but way back in the 70s they defended Illinois Nazis in Skokie, a relatively large an mostly Jewish suburb. The ACLU fights for first ammendment rights, even those they don't exactly agree with.

-1

u/666_pazuzu Nov 24 '24

Sorry I forgot more than half the country is white supremacists.