Except the U.S. is not a party to the ICC and therefore not subject to its jurisdiction. It should be, but it’s not. This is bullshit fear-mongering over something that literally cannot happen, in order to distract people from the thing that will and should be happening.
I was going to get this game. Now I’m not.
This is how we ended up with Q and anti-vaxxers.
If I’m not mistaken, a “militia” was understood to be an ad hoc, non-standing armed group, supplied by the resources of its members. The amendment was added so that if a militia were ever needed (again), it could be formed, because the pool of potential militia members had their own firearms. Laws limiting citizen access to firearms would hobble any new militia.
Given that armies at the time were only recently becoming “standing” (permanent) armies, and the U.S. didn’t really have one, their best option for making war was militias. They were acutely aware that the revolution began that way, and only later developed an actual (organized, separately supplied, long-term) army.
But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.
Or free Black people.
They weren’t quite the sharpest tacks in the box.
It doesn’t help that the sentence makes no sense. The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject, and lastly there’s that weird “German” comma after “Arms.”
There’s more than one way to interpret the meaning, but strictly speaking the only syntactically accurate rendering comes out roughly as:
[The right to] a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, as it’s necessary to the security of a free State (security meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms).
…which is also meaningless.
It’s a stupid amendment for lots of reasons, but the big one is that it’s just shitty English.
“I lost a brother once. I was lucky. I got him back.”
“I thought you said men like us don’t have families.”
“I was wrong.”
If he wants to appeal, the $83M goes into escrow. So he’s going to lose the money either way.
Ever try a hot cola?
I once drank a Coke that had been sitting in my car console for a day during the summer.
It was a revelation.
Do you disapprove of the idea that SCOTUS can decide constitutionality? It’s not in the constitution, so when they first did it, it was a “limit” on another branch of government.
Under many sane readings of the constitution, this isn’t a power congress has.
The constitution only explicitly articulates the process for establishing treaties, not ending them. So it’s a bit of a gray area as to whether the president can end them by himself, since he can’t establish them by himself.
To my mind, it would seem exceedingly weird if establishing a treaty required the consent of the Senate but breaking one didn’t. What’s the argument to be made that the two aspects (establish/break) are so fundamentally different that the rules for the first aren’t also the rules for the second? Why does the president need consent to say yes but does not need consent to say no?
It’s definitely been done before, but also never directly contested. (In previous cases SCOTUS has avoided answering the question by saying they didn’t have jurisdiction.)
What it comes down to there is whether the act of selection is an act of art. If there is no skill other than picking, I’m not sure I’d consider it an artistic act. (For similar reasons I’m very much on the fence about a lot of modern art.)
Makes sense. I got tinnitus in my left ear after a particularly nasty ear infection.
Star Wars, drive-in, 1977. I was 4.
The Democrats have been bringing spoons to a gunfight since the 70s.
Jesus Christ that NYT article has so many weasel words in it. “Seen as”, “appear to be,” blah blah blah. I hate the NYT.
At what point does the world look at this and say that enough is enough.
Do we ever, really? Over the sum of all war-related humanitarian disasters, the West responds to very few of them, and only when it’s economically or geopolitically useful. The Palestinian crisis is no different; it’s not exceptional in any way. There’s an ongoing nightmare in DRC that’s orders of magnitude worse than what’s happening in Gaza and… no one cares. Europe and the U.S. are on the verge of disengaging from Ukraine.
The thing is, it doesn’t even matter if we “condemn this behavior.” We could do that all we want and it wouldn’t make much difference. And no one wants to be interventionist - there’s too much awful history around it, and it smacks of colonialism, and it means taking resources away from “domestic issues” that always seem to matter more.
We’ve got to move away from the notion that the situation in Gaza is somehow unique. It allows us to conveniently ignore the root causes of the problem, which is much more universal, and stems from the ongoing sense of cultural superiority on the part of Europe and the U.S.
Ireland has been supporting civilian Palestinians from the beginning. The only Western nation to do so vocally.
Ireland has a lot of history resisting an occupying force.
These far-right Israeli politicians are basically saying, “You love them so much, you take them.”
Yes but also no. The U.S. isn’t a party to the ICC. It’s not under ICC jurisdiction regardless of the ASMPA. The function of the ASMPA is mostly to serve as political theater.
The U.S. should be a party to the ICC, but it’s not and it likely never will be.