In particular, arrest because of race or language spoken is now allowed

  • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    1 day ago

    Amendments aren’t tied to presidents though. They are tied to 2/3rds votes of representatives (or a bunch of states demanding a convention and then passing one without it being able to be blocked)

    • hddsx@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      1 day ago

      I think what they are saying is that depending on who is president, amendments can be temporarily interpreted by the Supreme Court to not exist at all

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 day ago

        Yeah these judges seem to be straying pretty far from past rulings, but it seems to be a recent problem. It seemed rare for the supreme Court to hear something they had already made precedent on before until the last decade, but maybe that’s just because I’ve paid more attention the last 10 years

    • flandish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      true but they are tied to “regimes” on the whole combined with an ever moving Overton Window…

      • LifeInMultipleChoice@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 day ago

        It seems to be going (has gone) that way. The stand out Amendment there might be the 22nd. Where Republicans majority voted to put 2 term limits on the presidency when it was a sitting Democrat. (Granted it was promoted by FDR I believe once he got his 4 election wins)