“He was crucified because he was captured. I like people who weren’t captured”
Fortunately it was outside the environment
You would think he’d know from his aunt Rosie’s tragic example about how our society puts inconvenient people out of sight.
And 34% on Taiwan won’t help anything either
One easy example: get ready to pay a lot more for vanilla. Madagascar makes 50% of it, and gets a 47% tariff. Good luck picking up the slack with US domestic production.
Ok let’s suppose you could though. Wouldn’t that make it EVEN MORE criminally negligent to discuss classified info there?
The DNC is Lucy 100% but Bernie is the football
It’s a valid thing we should have done a while ago, but can the president actually just do it? I mean, I know he “can” if people let him but, like, doesn’t that in theory require an act of Congress?
We’re setting up the “Mr Burns’ diseases” system. We’ll just have every constitutional crisis in existence all at once, and they’ll balance each other out! 🤦♀️
I don’t remember details but I feel like I read a while ago that there’s a pending amendment that some blue states want to de-ratify. If there’s open question about whether de-ratifying is a thing, then this might be a strategic move to get the courts to establish that it is.
Edit: looking up unratified amendments I see there aren’t that many and none seems to fit the description I was thinking of so I guess my memory is just wrong. But still I do wonder if it might just be a case of putting an old question to bed.
Ligma grindset
My favorite ravioli is peanut butter filled pretzel bites
Well his manifesto said it wasn’t terrorism after all. No reason to question such a fine upstanding citizen.
From the 1960s, it uses vacuum tubes and weighs 7 tons
Clearly not, or you would know that Febreze and Snickers is far superior!
Or he wants to go finish melting the rest of the ice faster
I’d vote for “unrelenting cunt but for the people”
It’s a consequence of how courts interpret this part of the US constitution. That provision was based on common law so i would imagine some other related legal systems might have something similar, at least historically.
In the context specifically of nullification, the CGP Grey video referenced by OP covers exactly this, but to summarize: the combination of that rule with another principle (that juries can’t be punished for their decisions) creates the concept of “nullification”. If the jury believes that a defendant is guilty but returns a “not guilty” verdict, the defendant walks and the jury can’t be held legally responsible either.
In criminal cases, the rule against “double jeopardy” means the government can’t appeal a “not guilty” verdict. The defendant can still appeal a guilty verdict though.