5 ms·

> The judicial branch is wading through this question now (sometimes allowing compulsion, often not); it's not a question for Congress to answer, as appealing a

> The judicial branch is wading through this question now (sometimes allowing compulsion, often not); it's not a question for Congress to answer, as appealing as it might be to them to help us redefine our Constitutional rights. IANAL, but from what I recall, the entire point of the legislative branch is to create, remove, and re-define constitutional rights. The judicial affirms what they are, and the executive violates them. (Sorry, is that too on-the-nose?)

dgoldstein0 10y ago
This is pretty close, but I would phrase it as the legislative branch gets to write the "fine print" of constitutional rights. Often the constitution is vague enough that the legislature has a large amount of creative license; sometimes though particular rights are given by the constitution or an amendment, in which case changing it in a large way, or removing it, requires another amendment - or else such attempted changes may be struck down by judicial challenge.
- ethbro 10y ago
  The full US process could be summed as: The Constitution defines some rights and laws. Congress is empowered to grant additional rights and make additional laws. Congress also implements and defines rights and laws contained in the Constitution. If a citizen feels the Constitution has been violated by Congress, then the judicial system (headed by the Supreme Court) decides whether to invalidate the law(s) or not. If a majority of citizens wish to change the Constitution, then there is an amendment process.
emiliobumachar 10y ago
IANAL either, not even an American, but I know there's a very objective process for the US legislative to change the constitution, which is hard by design. The Gp's criticism is based on the unstated assumption that they'll try to bypass that process.
jhauris 10y ago
The legislative branch can not create laws that change the definition of what rights are constitutionally protected or interpreted through the normal legislative process. The SCOTUS in fact can strike down laws that are passed but are deemed in violation of the US constitution. There is a process to change the constitution, but it is hard by design.

dgoldstein0 10y ago

This is pretty close, but I would phrase it as the legislative branch gets to write the "fine print" of constitutional rights. Often the constitution is vague enough that the legislature has a large amount of creative license; sometimes though particular rights are given by the constitution or an amendment, in which case changing it in a large way, or removing it, requires another amendment - or else such attempted changes may be struck down by judicial challenge.

ethbro 10y ago
The full US process could be summed as: The Constitution defines some rights and laws. Congress is empowered to grant additional rights and make additional laws. Congress also implements and defines rights and laws contained in the Constitution. If a citizen feels the Constitution has been violated by Congress, then the judicial system (headed by the Supreme Court) decides whether to invalidate the law(s) or not. If a majority of citizens wish to change the Constitution, then there is an amendment process.

emiliobumachar 10y ago

IANAL either, not even an American, but I know there's a very objective process for the US legislative to change the constitution, which is hard by design. The Gp's criticism is based on the unstated assumption that they'll try to bypass that process.

jhauris 10y ago

The legislative branch can not create laws that change the definition of what rights are constitutionally protected or interpreted through the normal legislative process. The SCOTUS in fact can strike down laws that are passed but are deemed in violation of the US constitution. There is a process to change the constitution, but it is hard by design.