4 ms·
While you're looking at it from a de jure perspective (i.e. power as granted from written law), blackbagboys's post is looking at it from a de facto perspective
by Figs 9y ago
While you're looking at it from a de jure perspective (i.e. power as granted from written law), blackbagboys's post is looking at it from a de facto perspective (i.e. power in the sense of whatever they can actually get away with doing).
- schrodinger 9y agoThe de jure perspective is still worthwhile to consider because although there are definitely frequently overreaches of power, you still have a reasonable chance of challenging such overreaches in our court system.
- lovich 9y agoDo you have a reasonable chance? It seems that unless you are already wealthy, or get a powerful entity to back you up like the EFF or Peter Thiel, that you have very little chance of even having your day in court.
- tehlike 9y agoThis is why we have nonprofits like eff. Individual cases are one thing, but collective cases make it more powerful for defending rights.
- lovich 9y agoI understand that's why these non profits have spring up, but I don't think their existence means you have a reasonable chance in our legal system. They simply don't have the resources to help everyone
- tehlike 9y agoI know, it's a tough question. Ordinary citizens are unlikely to sue government individually. And i am aware EFF doesn't have infinite resources. I prefer them fighting at higher level than individual cases. Cases like encryption being unlawful etc are more important for democracy/freedom than my inconvenience at the border for example.
- lovich 9y agoAll of that is reasonable but I was replying to the poster who stated that people still have a reasonable chance in our system. I don't believe that is true any longer, if it ever was
- kakarot 9y agode jure perspective: should, shouldn't de facto perspective: can, can't The government shouldn't do what they are doing. But they can, and they do.
- baddox 9y agoBut the government grants itself its power from a de jure perspective as well. How did the government come into power in the first place? By consent of the governed, right? Remember public high school civics class? But wait, who decided what “consent of the governed” means, and exactly what level of consent was required to claim legitimacy? Yep, that was the government itself.
- tonyztan 9y agoWell the State governments at the time ratified the Constitution, so the Federal Government didn't grant itself power; the State governments did. State governments can still take power away by convening a Convention to Amend the Constitution and then ratifying a Constitutional Amendment.