traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns
Welcome to /c/traaaaaaannnnnnnnnns, an anti-capitalist meme community for transgender and gender diverse people.
-
Please follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct
-
Selfies are not permitted for the personal safety of users.
-
No personal identifying information may be posted or commented.
-
Stay on topic (trans/gender stuff).
-
Bring a trans friend!
-
Any image post that gets 200 upvotes with "banner" or "rule 6" in the title becomes the new banner.
-
Posts about dysphoria/trauma/transphobia should be NSFW tagged for community health purposes.
-
When made outside of NSFW tagged posts, comments about dysphoria/traumatic/transphobic material should be spoiler tagged.
-
Arguing in favor of transmedicalism is unacceptable. This is an inclusive and intersectional community.
-
While this is mostly a meme community, we allow most trans related posts as we grow the trans community on the fediverse.
If you need your neopronouns added to the list, please contact the site admins.
Remember to report rulebreaking posts, don't assume someone else has already done it!
Matrix Group Chat:
Suggested Matrix Client: Cinny
https://rentry.co/tracha (Includes rules and invite link)
WEBRINGS:
🏳️⚧️ Transmasculine Pride Ring 🏳️⚧️
⬅️ Left 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈 Be Crime Do Gay Webring 🏳️⚧️🏳️🌈 Right ➡️
view the rest of the comments
It's only a matter before a red state tries to extradite a trans person from safe state, which will comply in the spirit of bipartisanship. Or maybe they won't, in which case it will go to the Supreme Court which will rule just the way you expect them to. Fuck this depraved country
Supreme Court might be idiotic assholes but I really doubt they will rule in favor of forced extradition to a different state. This is something pushover blue states might do on their own, but for the federal government to say that state laws apply nationwide would open a can of worms.
Edit: I was wrong. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-2/overview-of-the-extradition-interstate-rendition-clause
They allowed it when it was to kidnap Bill Haywood![emoji big-bill big-bill](https://www.hexbear.net/pictrs/image/018e8047-e536-4681-ae67-6c1171b378fc.png)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Haywood#Extradition
~~Supreme court never ruled that Idaho must extradite him to Colorado. That's what I'm saying is unlikely.~~
~~Arguably, they don't even have the authority to rule in such a way.~~
Edit: You know what I did some research and it looks like I'm wrong.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-4/section-2/clause-2/overview-of-the-extradition-interstate-rendition-clause
Yeah, not an exact parallel to what you were arguing given Colorado's complicity, but I figured "Bad state forces extradition by any means necessary, Supreme Court pops up at the end to say 'Actually, that was fine' " was close enough to be ominous.
Thanks for the link. Perhaps also relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fugitive_Felon_Act
They can simply say it applies in this case but not in the others. It doesn’t need to be consistent or make any internal sense. The hardest part is coming up with the bullshit about how this is implied by the constitution.