this post was submitted on 17 Mar 2025
102 points (96.4% liked)

politics

21931 readers
3694 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. 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.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. 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.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

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.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
  • A behind-the-scenes effort to force Congress to call a convention to amend the Constitution could end up helping President Donald Trump in his push to expand presidential power — or even run for a third term.
  • The effort to amend the Constitution predates Trump’s second term but carries new weight as several members of the president’s inner circle have expressed support for a convention to limit federal government spending and power.
  • A draft lawsuit obtained by WisconsinWatch and ProPublica argues Congress must call a convention. Liberal and conservative legal scholars have criticized the arguments in it, calling them “wild,” “completely illegitimate” and “deeply flawed.”
  • Some states’ requests for a constitutional convention date back centuries. “It is absurd, on the face of it, that they could count something that had to do with Prohibition as a call for a constitutional convention in 2025,” former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wisconsin, said.
top 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] cabron_offsets@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (4 children)

Harris won 20 states. The traitors need 34 states to even propose a constitutional convention, and 38 states must ratify any proposed amendments.

Repubs can fuck off and die. Slowly, painfully. While I munch tariffed popcorn. Fucking traitors.

[–] Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world 14 points 1 day ago

After the cloture vote we just saw, it's less far fetched that just enough democrats will go along with it.

[–] Rhaedas@fedia.io 14 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Of course nothing will happen, legally. What will happen is it rally up his supporters and just by the nature of people supporting the ideas, he'll do stuff on the idea that he has some mandate that will become Constitutional one day. He's already doing things that are far past his power legally and morally, even going against active judicial demands. Why is he going to wait for the actual legality of it all?

[–] FolknForage@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

It’s crazy that when he got rid of any ethical restraint, literally nothing can stop the president from doing whatever the crazy fuck shit he wants, as we are seeing…

[–] cmbabul@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago

Honestly I felt like this for a long time but Schumer and other dems capitulating has me worried. Civil war is looking like a best case scenario pipe dream the way things are developing. I expect this summer to be intense, crazy, and potentially the last chance ‘we the people’ have to stand up.

[–] adhocfungus@midwest.social 7 points 1 day ago

It would fail if they tried today. But after 3-7 more years of eroding voting rights, empowering intimidation and misinformation groups, and emplacing loyal people in state governments? I think they could get all 50 states. He's going to run for a third term regardless because it's obvious by now that nobody will stop him, but having the amendment in place will be a fitting capstone to his power grab.

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 8 points 23 hours ago (2 children)

balanced budget amendment

Nonononono.

The federal government has achieved fiscal balance (even surpluses) in just seven periods since 1776, bringing in enough revenue to cover all of its spending during 1817-21, 1823-36, 1852-57, 1867-73, 1880-93, 1920-30 and 1998-2001. We have also experienced six depressions. They began in 1819, 1837, 1857, 1873, 1893 and 1929.

Do you see the correlation?

The one exception occurred in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the dot-com and housing bubbles fueled a consumption binge that delayed the harmful effects of the Clinton surpluses until the Great Recession of 2007-09.

Because:

National debt is not like individual debt.

National debt is not like individual debt.

National debt is NOT like individual debt!

But at least our most senior treasury officials must understand this, right?

Treasury.gov site:

Key Takeaways

The national debt is composed of distinct types of debt, similar to an individual whose debt may consist of a mortgage, car loan, and credit cards.

Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

[–] themadcodger@kbin.earth 8 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Can you, uh, remind everyone why that is? I obviously know, but for all those people that need to hear it again?

[–] kibiz0r@midwest.social 6 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Good point.

If you like video format: Finding The Money is a great documentary on how sovereign currency has worked historically, how it works in the US right now, why the national debt and spending deficits aren’t (necessarily, by themselves) something to worry about, and what to worry about instead: inflation, physical resources, and labor utilization.

If you prefer reading: “Retiring the US debt would retire the US dollar” by Cory Doctorow is a good short read, and Stephanie Kelton has a book The Deficit Myth which I’ve heard is good too.

[–] FolknForage@lemm.ee 1 points 1 hour ago

Haven’t watched the video, but my prior knowledge and intuition tells me a) this was the special case of the United States hegemony, where the world literally runs on usd, and b) this might not be the case in the multipolar world that Trump is making for some criminal reason.

[–] arrow74@lemm.ee 5 points 23 hours ago

I don't know how to make people understand the difference between personal and national debt. It's frustrating

This is suspicious as fuck

[–] technocrit@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Peeps like to talk about reforming this crusty old slave pact to make it more democratic, etc...

But in reality the only "reform" is going to be more fascism. That's the whole point of the system.

[–] Haess@lemmynsfw.com 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Such a fucking tragedy that a particular kid didn't have such terrible fucking aim. Of course I'm talking about Ralphie, he almost put his eye out.

[–] FolknForage@lemm.ee 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

I will never forget that day - I was tripping on molly and stupidly briefly looked at my phone to check time or something, and there it was the Apple News notification about the incident. I then had a legit vision, about the forces working to make his victory an inevitability, and I cried as the world collapsed on me.

I came from a different country, that has struggled for decades with “strong men” and their corruption, and knew right then that the incredible feat that is the American Democratic experiment, which I admire and came to join, was going to end.

There is a slim chance to save it still, but most folks not bought in are far too naive to understand what is really happening or complacent to do anything about it.

Idk, I hope I am wrong.

[–] Typotyper@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago