this post was submitted on 05 Nov 2024
850 points (99.1% liked)

politics

19097 readers
6343 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Summary

Justice Samuel Alito, a self-described Originalist, has been criticized for allegedly disregarding the Constitution’s text when it conflicts with his personal views.

Recently, it emerged that Alito accepted a knighthood from a European order, despite the Constitution’s ban on foreign titles for U.S. officials.

This title, from the House of Bourbon–Two Sicilies, raises questions about Alito’s commitment to American democratic ideals, which the Framers aimed to protect from foreign influence.

Critics argue that Alito’s actions reflect hypocrisy in his supposed adherence to Originalism and constitutional principles.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] reddig33@lemmy.world 117 points 1 week ago (2 children)
[–] bamboo@lemmy.blahaj.zone 58 points 1 week ago (4 children)

This has the added benefit of stripping Meghan Markle of her citizenship as well.

I really have no opinion of Meghan Markle but thought this was funny. It's insane that it'd be easier to ratify an amendment from 1810 which would impact a good handful of people to target Alito, than implement robust Supreme Court ethics reforms.

[–] AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space 12 points 1 week ago

The Australian woman who married into the Danish royal family had to renounce her Australian citizenship, so that would be fair enough.

The fact that the war of 1812 didn’t spur overwhelming support for this amendment is kinda funny, tbh

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 4 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

No, a citizen can accept a title. But they cannot hold a title and an office. However Prince Harry would have to give up his title to become an American citizen.

Also the OG document bans exactly what Alito did.

[–] frezik@midwest.social 33 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Doesn't matter here. The Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8) bans public officials from receiving titles of nobility. Alito already falls under this. The writers of the Constitution thought this one was so important that it's not even an amendment. It's in the OG document.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I think it means titles of nobility from a state, no?

[–] frezik@midwest.social 7 points 1 week ago (1 children)

" . . . from any King, Prince, or foreign State."

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 2 points 1 week ago

Still the one in the article sounds like it's something from a private club, not any kind of sovereign power.

[–] ShaggySnacks@lemmy.myserv.one 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

It’s in the OG document.

Alito has the true original Constitution that says otherwise. Before any asks, only Alito can look at it.