World News
A community for discussing events around the World
Rules:
-
Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
-
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
-
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
-
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
-
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
-
Rule 5: Keep it civil. 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.
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.
-
Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
-
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.
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.
Lemmy World Partners
News !news@lemmy.world
Politics !politics@lemmy.world
World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world
Recommendations
For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/
- Consider including the article’s mediabiasfactcheck.com/ link
view the rest of the comments
Focusing just on the constitutional changes: it's a bad sign when your constitution can be changed by a single political party.
In El Salvador's case they have a unicameral legislature and Bukele's party has 54 of the 60 seats. So, there's no way to prevent this by requiring a bigger supermajority.
But, it seems like since a constitution is meant to last as long as the country exists, amendments to it should have to be reaffirmed or they get automatically repealed. So, there's an automatic re-vote after 5, 10 and 20 years or something.
If they had done that with prohibition in the US they wouldn't have needed the 21st amendment to repeal prohibition, they could just have decided not to continue the 18th which established prohibition.
With a dictator as president, and absolute control over the legislature, I would bet that those guys are also going to make it impossible for any other person to win a presidential election, or any other party to win the legislature. And then, the only way to restore democracy will be a coup or an uprising.
That would pretty much go against the point of a constitution. It's meant to be both extremely hard to change it and extremely hard to revert changes put in as a matter of how it's done(though never impossible -that would be bad).
You can only put as many safeguards in as possible to prevent dictatorships, but if they control more than 2/3 of the government your screwed no matter what laws you have on the book
That's why I think confirming after 5, 10 years might be a good idea. A supermajority is rare. Unless the supermajority screws with the laws to guarantee they stay in power, the next congress might have enough votes to undo any meddling they did. If they do cement their power, then you're screwed either way.
Thanks for the grammar correction 🙏
Ah, so do you mean it as a one time confirmation rather than repeating? In which case I'm a lot more inclined to agree with you
My idea (not very well developed) was to do it once 5 years after the amendment, once 10 years later, and once 20 years later.
The 5 year window would be for obviously bad amendments that really should never have passed. You just have to wait 5 years to try to fix things because that's enough time for a set of elections to happen and power to change hands, so you don't just have the same people voting on something.
10 years is for something that seemed like a good idea at the time, but a decade later has some obvious problems. Something like prohibition, or new amendments that might have been written in the wake of some major event like a terrorist attack.
20 years would be so the next generation has a chance to weigh in. Maybe older people were scared of the world changing to they wanted to enshrine something in the constitution to keep the world the way they liked it. Younger people would then have a chance to reverse it.
The idea is that there's a 20 year trial period for new amendments. If they're still thought to be a good idea, it should be pretty easy to rubber-stamp their renewal at the 5, 10 and 20 year marks. If the support for them has faded, they automatically get repealed when there aren't enough people to support them.
I also just think it would be a good idea for amendments to be pretty common, even if all they're doing is clarifying parts of the constitution that are vague. Like, whatever your position on the US 2nd amendment, you have to admit the wording is horribly vague. So, rather than supreme court justices trying to determine the historical context around those particular words, or people making weird analogies between railguns and muskets, you just open up the document, add a few clarifying words, and close it back up again.