4 ms·
I don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the c
by groovy2shoes 10y ago
I don't mean to imply that you're wrong (afaik, you're actually correct here), but I do want to point out that the interpretation and legal enforcement of the constitution is supposed to be done by the Supreme Court (and, to a somewhat lesser extent, the entire judiciary branch). I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;)
- morgante 10y ago> I'm not sure to what extent the SC can pass judgments / make rulings without being prompted by a lawsuit, though at the very least it seems to me that the ACLU at least keeps the important stuff on their radar ;) They can't at all. Ours is an adversarial legal system and therefore the rule of law depends on dogged opposition willing to make challenges to unjust laws. That's why the ACLU is so critically important. It's also one of the big problems with secret laws and warrantless surveillance: if you don't know your rights are being violated, how do you prove a violation occurred (which is a requirement to be granted standing in court)?
- baconner 10y agoGood point and actually it cuts against my judicial review argument given FISA's reputation (and stats) for approving virtually everything.
- baconner 10y agoAgreed - enforcing the constitution is a tag team effort between the judiciary and the people. I would prefer it if there were required judicial approval for new laws and EOs, but alas that's not our system.