503
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 06 Jun 2025
503 points (98.5% liked)
News
36043 readers
3067 users here now
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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
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. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
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.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Look dude, we have gotten so far from the actual point of my "wall of text," which you couldn't be bothered to read before arguing several more walls of text.
So let me just put aside the fact that I believe it's a bad idea to set a precedent where we rely too much on the government making constitutional amendments to reflect changes in modern society (not that it is not sometimes necessary, but that constitutional amendments should not be the default for improving America, otherwise you risk bad actors attempting to modify or remove protections and benefits that already exist in the constitution).
Let's also set aside that congress, currently controlled by Trump loyalists, want a constitutional amendment that would allow Trump to use the same strategy Vladimir Putin has used to make himself president for life and destroy democracy, and that this is exactly why I feel the way I do about constitutional amendments.
In a world where those concerns don't exist, I still have to ask why not just have it codified into law instead?
The short/uncomplicated answer for why Roe v Wade was never codified by something like the Women's health protection act, is because it didn't have enough support across both the house and Senate (bc once again, the issue used by the Heritage Foundation to create a false political division that didn't actually exist, has worked as intended. Yet most people are oblivious about who created that division, and the campaign they ran, that to this day, makes people feel so reactionary about things such as abortion. This is also the reason so many on the left worry they will lose moderate supporters, while taking their left base for granted, which they are now also beginning to lose due to voter apathy as a result of these people constantly trying to appease moderates.)
Given that we couldn't even get enough support for that to be codified into law, and putting aside literally everything else, why would you think it would somehow alternatively be easier to get enough congressional support to pass a constitutional amendments for any issue being used to keep people divided?
There is no logical or factual basis where case law precedent is better than enacting a law for explicitly protecting a woman's right to choose. Your example of Roe literally demonstrates the point.