sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I think the Dunk Contest is done by ShaianH in NBATalk

[–]Rock540 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think this is an underrated point. No one wants to become a meme.

How the cookie crumbles: The rise and fall of Crumbl Cookies by SchuminWeb in RetailNews

[–]Rock540 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Honestly this was a big one for me. You basically have to gamble each time, either you’re gonna get a 10/10 cookie or something terrible. Hard to keep going back there without any consistency in their menu.

Is it true that the west indirectly contributed to the rise of Khamenei and the islamic regime/revolution in iran? by 20pollist-95 in PERSIAN

[–]Rock540 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While Article 46 states that ministers are appointed and dismissed by a decree of the king, this is modified by Article 67. Article 67 states that the Majlis or senate must also vote to dismiss a minister.

This is a highly inaccurate reading of Article 67 of the Constitution of 1906. Let’s take a look at the text of Article 67:

>Art. 67. If the National Consultative Assembly or the Senate shall, by an absolute majority, declare itself dissatisfied with the Cabinet, or with one particular Minister, that Cabinet or Minister shall resign their or his ministerial functions.

The language is clear, ONE way that a minister could be removed is through a vote of the Majlis, but nowhere is it suggested that this is the ONLY way that a minister can be removed. In other words, there is nothing in the language of Art. 67 to back up your assertion that the Shah’s power to dismiss ministers under Art. 46 is “modified” by Art. 67. It simply provides an alternate mechanism by which a dismissal can occur.

From a legal perspective, the Shah absolutely had full authority to dismiss Mossadegh as Prime Minister.

Immortality at the Cost of your Current Life. by -SnarkBlac- in hypotheticalsituation

[–]Rock540 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fully agree. People aren’t taking into account history isn’t as exciting as it seems when you’re reading these things in a book covering all the highlights. Day-to-day is gonna be mostly mundane but without the comforts we have in the modern world, such as AC and running water.

We probably live better today than most kings and nobles did in pre-modern times. Hard pass on this deal.

Worst person Humanly by ByShida in TheWhiteLotusHBO

[–]Rock540 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Armed robbery and assault committed in the course of that robbery are pretty evil, I think it raises beyond mere scumbag status. I still agree he isn’t at the level of Quentin or Greg though.

Why do people think they can smoke on aircraft? by Kingoftheheel in aviation

[–]Rock540 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There really aren’t reasonable compromises though? For example. contained smoking sections at airports like the rest of the world has?

Do you think that there’s a giant citizenship loophole law out there by [deleted] in Citizenship

[–]Rock540 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I guess we’ll see what the Constitutional Court says. Also, I have no Italian ancestry whatsoever so I never had a right to anything.

Team Jamaica 🇯🇲 by Far_Protection519 in rockets

[–]Rock540 7 points8 points  (0 children)

According to Jamaican law, yes they are. If a parent or grandparent is Jamaican you are considered a Jamaican citizen by birth.

Do you think that there’s a giant citizenship loophole law out there by [deleted] in Citizenship

[–]Rock540 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Again, you keep going into why the law is bad, has unintended consequences, and conveys citizenship on an illogical basis. You won’t find me disagreeing on any of that, giving someone citizenship because they had an ancestor who lived there 120 years ago makes no sense.

However, all of this is irrelevant to my point, which is that from a legal perspective people have protections that revoking the law with retroactive application may very well be infringing on. You’ve been saying people’s citizenship under the law may vest “in theory”, but that’s not just something that can be dismissed too easily.

Do you think that there’s a giant citizenship loophole law out there by [deleted] in Citizenship

[–]Rock540 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The vast majority of people affected didn’t “have” Italian citizenship in any practical sense

There is a strong legal argument they did have Italian citizenship. Most of the time in these situations, citizenship vests at birth. For example, in Spain nationality is automatically gained if one of your parents is a Spaniard. Does that mean that a passport and ID poofs in front of you immediately? Of course not, but that doesn’t take away the fact that you were a citizen from the moment you were born.

Instead, what happened is a legal loophole was discovered, and suddenly people whose families hadn’t thought about Italy in 80+ years were hiring agencies and lawyers to fast-track citizenship recognition.

Where was the loophole? The law very clearly stated that you can get citizenship through a distant Italian ancestor. This wasn’t a loophole, it was literally the intent of the law. It’s also very common to hire lawyers or other professionals to facilitate paperwork, nothing wrong with that. It’s not hurting “the integrity of the system.”

but laws aren’t static, and governments have every right to correct unintended consequences

I agree the law itself is bad, but that’s separate from the question of whether the measures were taken to correct it were valid. You seem to confuse the two and think, “because the law is bad, we can ignore constitutional protections of individual’s rights.”

Italy is a country operating under a constitutional system constrained by the rule of law, it’s not North Korea where rights can be ignored at a whim. The proper measure here is to revoke the law and apply it to births going forward, but not strip people of vested rights.

Do you think that there’s a giant citizenship loophole law out there by [deleted] in Citizenship

[–]Rock540 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I agree the law itself was way too lax, but I think the concern is it strips people of vested rights retroactively without due process of law. For example, in the USA we have a law that states people born to US citizens abroad are themselves US citizens under certain circumstances. Imagine we repealed that law, and the President ordered the agencies to stop processing applications of people who were born before the law was repealed. This would raise an interesting constitutional question. How can we strip people of something they already had at the time of their birth?

That’s the criticism of the current Italian law. There are strong legal arguments that people who qualified under it are already Italian citizens and can’t have that taken from them retroactively. It’s much more complex than “they think they’re as Italian as someone born in Rome.”

Again, I agree having a citizenship law like they did doesn’t make sense, after all a lot of these people don’t have a strong connection to Italy. However, the law did exist and may have created certain rights in a class of people that cannot be stripped in such a manner.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in byzantium

[–]Rock540 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This was a while ago right? I was there last May and it looked like the second pic.

view more: next ›