News
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. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
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. 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.
view the rest of the comments
IDK why I've only just realised this, but does the US not have any concept of a formal "opposition" in government?
Here each of 150 or so regions elects a representative. Whichever of those can get 76 others to line up behind them gets to be Prime Minister and forms the government. All the others form the formal "opposition".
Whenever the government does something, the opposition explains to everyone how stupid it is. Often times the opposition gets more air time than the actual government.
The PM couldn't just, you know, make up lies... because the opposition would skewer him.
Do the dems form any kind of cohesive opposition? Does the media just ignore them? Why don't they have any apparatus with which to reset the narrative?
Putting aside the fact that a formal concept of an opposition wouldn't help, because the US has a de facto opposition by nature of having a two-party system: what do you mean, "The PM couldn't just, you know, make up lies"?
Yes they could. This is obvious if you think about it, but this is provable experimentally; the UK had Boris Johnson for three years who lied all the time. Australia's Scott Morrison constantly lied about fossil fuels and climate change. Parliamentary democracies aren't magic.
The opposition was supposed to be the media, but the media is now controlled by the megacorps that also control the government, so they also control the narrative.
There are several reasons why the US has no concept of a formal opposition. One reason is that there is no concept of ever needing to "form a government" in the parliamentary sense. Each elected branch is a separate entity, with its own electoral rules. Particularly in the legislative branch, the majority can do whatever they want (except for the complicated filibuster rules in the Senate.) And the Executive is an entirely separate election. The government is structured directly by the election, and we gave all the levers of government to Republicans last time around. Sometimes the election will result in handing majorities to different parties, and only then will the oppositionhave any real power.
Another reason is that, believe it or not, we have no formal concept of parties in our founding documents. The founders disdained European-style parties, and did not want to replicate them here. They envisioned a country where individuals ran for office, and then all came to Congress representing their individual districts. They did not forsee how easy communication would get in the future, making the local District perspective less important.(also recall that at the founding, both the Senate and Presidential Electors were appointed by State legislatures, so really all elections were local).
And of course, by instituting first-past-the-post elections in these districts, they guaranteed that as communications got easier and national campaigns could emerge, elections would eventually coalesce unto one of two options anyway. The founders' disdain for parties led directly to an even worse two-party system.
The founders debated long after the constitution was ratified too.
Outlawing parties would be in direct violation of their first amendment. Humans are social by nature* - coalitions, parties, groups will form just because we exist.
*Yes I'm counting my AuADHD ass because even though I hate socializing with a passion I want to be able to.
The first US party was formed in 1789, that's only 13 years after the US declared independence and only 6 years after the end of the Revolutionary War. Pretty much all of the founders were alive when the Federalist Party was formed, communications didn't get much better than in 1776. By 1794-1795 both the Federalist Party and the newly formed opposition Democratic-Republican Party had state networks working on a local level in pretty much all the states.
I always love how Americans treat their current 2 party system as a new thing that arose due to modern communications but instead it was there since basically the beginning of their country.
But it is still a fact that the 2 party system is not engrained in our founding documents anywhere, and we have no idea of an "opposition" party. Either one party controls the Presidency and Congress at the same time, or it doesn't.
And although those 2 parties did emerge early in the country's history, they eventually dissolved, and are no longer around in any capacity. Another poster here noted that parties are simply human nature.
Rather, the current two-party system is an artifact of the first-past-the-post voting that states adopted. The Constitution doesn't even mandate it, but it is how most states have run their elections since the founding.
Even in a parliamentary system, if the only members of parliament are either conservative or far right, there's no meaningful opposition.
In America the president has nearly god status and can seemingly do whatever he/she pleases. Not much the opposition can do against.
Sort of. The Founders gave specific powers to the President, and specific other powers to Congress and the Courts. They envisioned that ambitious people would aim to keep their powers, and not give them up willingly.
The wide-ranging powers of the Presidency are meant to be held in check by the other branches. The Founders did not anticipate a Congress and Supreme Court that would let the President break laws with impunity, just because that President aimed to hurt people they all hated
That's such a load of bullshit. Your Founders barely bothered to outline what the Supreme Court is and what it can do. It was in 1789 that Congress actually determined the details of that and most of the powers of the Supreme Court were determined during John Marshall's tenure as Chief Justice.
This is also doubly funny because it has happened before when President Andrew Jackson refused to respect the Supreme Court Decision in Worcester v. Georgia and the Supreme Court did nothing because the State of Georgia and the President aimed to hurt people they all hated (Native Americans) and it eventually led to the Trail of Tears.
I swear Americans don't know their own history.
Actually, this illustrates my point entirely. Article III (which describes the Judiciary) explicitly defines a single Supreme Court but leaves the structure of the rest of the Judiciary to the Congress. So this interplay between Congress and the Court is exactly what they were looking for. The Courts have wide latitude to judge cases, but it has to be within the structure that Congress creates.
They didn't get into specifics, on purpose, because they felt that in a well-functioning government, ambitious people would keep each other in check.
Because the SCOTUS has no enforcement mechanism for what you described. Even just for Worcester v. Georgia, what is the USMS supposed to do against the state of Georgia without support from the Executive? Jackson literally wrote in 1832: "the decision of the Supreme Court has fell still born, and they find that they cannot coerce Georgia to yield to its mandate." Jackson did eventually threaten enforcement as part of what became known as the nullification crisis.
But either way, Worcester v. Georgia wasn't directly about the 1830 Indian Removal Act or 1835's Treaty of New Echota; it was about the freeing of Worcester etc., which did eventually go through. The Treaty of New Echota should've been illegal on the basis of *Georgia v. Worcester", but again, the SCOTUS doesn't just go around enforcing cases it didn't rule on unless it gets back to their court to rule on that separate case; that's the Executive's job.
"The Supreme Court did nothing because they hate Indian Americans" is such unfounded bullshit that you just made up because it sounded right. You can correctly argue all you want that this shows separation of powers is just an illusion because one single person has to agree to enforce laws and can only be removed (theoretically) with a supermajority of Congress if they fail to do so.
You can just say "they," such as, "do whatever they please."
ETA: oof, downvotes? Seriously? It's just English, people. It's easier to write. It's easier to read. It's how the language has referred to a single person of unknown or irrelevant gender for about as long as it's been a language. See #3.
When someone goes out of their way to be inclusive why would you think it's appropriate to rain on their parade??
Be nice. And if you can't do that then at least abstain from being rude.
What makes you think I was raining on their parade? "They" is no less inclusive than "he/she." It is however easier to write, easier to read, and it's completely common English that every native speaker just naturally uses and understands on a daily basis. There's no reason to go out of your way to make your message harder to write and read, for absolutely no gain.
ETA: My intent was not to be rude. My intent was to help someone out. For all either of us know, the person I responded to isn't a native English speaker and genuinely found it helpful.
In the US we are supposed to have “checks and balances” where Congress-Courts-Executive powers are balanced. President can veto, Congress can override with a majority, courts can claim legislation unconstitutional. Etc etc.
Over time, these checks have been eroded from the executive branch through Congress and the court’s own doing. For example, the current Supreme Court is using the shadow docket and ignoring legal precedent to give Trump whatever he wants. Only this week did the senate finally vote to close the Iraq war powers act. Etc etc.
Part of this is due to having one party control all three branches. Part of it is due to the opposing party being ineffectual dumbasses most of the time.