4 ms·

You already hit this point but: the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is about defining a legal structure of government. We can all agree that pr

by ellius 8y ago

You already hit this point but: the Constitution, and especially the Bill of Rights, is about defining a legal structure of government. We can all agree that privacy is a "universal right," but neither history nor legal precedent supports that interpretation unequivocally (even with regard to the government specifically; you can read some really interesting Constitutional history about the "right to privacy" and how it arose as a concept in the late 1800s; Brandeis's "The Right to Privacy" is a fascinating historical document"). The only true remedy to this problem is laws enacted by Congress. We need to stop talking about this in a wishy-washy idealistic way and start talking about realistic, precise, and legal solutions, which means enacting specific laws.

jacquesm 8y ago
The USA voted in favor of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of human rights. It contains an item about privacy being an essential human right.
- icebraining 8y ago
  That's already been ruled out by the SCOTUS. "Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights when the Declaration was drafted, spoke for the United States and stated that the Declaration "was not a treaty or international agreement and did not impose legal obligations; it was rather a statement of principles."
  - ajdlinux 8y ago
    There is however the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is an international treaty. However, in practice, the ICCPR functions much like the UDHR - a statement of principles rather than a treaty which provides for proper enforcement. The US apparently specifically indicated when it ratified the ICCPR that it didn't consider the treaty "self-executing" as a matter of US domestic law and thus you can't enforce it directly in the US courts.
duncan_bayne 8y ago
This is an outsider's perspective (I'm Australian) but it seems as though more and more is being done through Executive Orders - the Korean War, the EPA, Obamacare - instead of through proper channels. As far as I can tell, this is because Constitutional amendments are hard to enact (in the case of the EPA and Obamacare) and for reasons I don't understand, Congress doesn't seem to want to declare war any more. Is that a fair assessment, or am I getting only part of the picture?
- ellius 8y ago
  Sure, but those aren't the only two options. You can just pass normal laws. They don't have to be amendments. That's also difficult, though, due to the extreme partisanship in our political environment, but it's theoretically the fitting solution.
  - duncan_bayne 8y ago
    My understanding was that at least some of those - Obamacare and the EPA - required either an Executive Order or a Constitutional amendment, because the powers required were not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Agreed that declarations of war can just be declarations of war, no amendments required. It strikes me as odd that Congresscritters would be okay invading a country, but not okay with declaring war against them.
    - thoth 8y ago
      US Agencies don't need a Constitutional Amendment to come into existence - the usual method is simply a law that Congress passes that the President then signs. E.g. Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, etc. going way back to the Dept of Foreign Affairs (precursor to Dept of State). Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was also created by Congress - bill passed in both houses, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court. That's basically a textbook example of how the system is supposed to work. I'm not sure why the EPA (and others, like FEMA) were created by Executive Order instead. As far as why Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, they've basically rolled up their say into the War Powers Act and the War Powers Resolution which provides for them being informed and issuing continuing approvals. They can then support the President (as Commander in Chief) but not officially declare war.

by ellius 8y ago

jacquesm 8y ago

The USA voted in favor of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of human rights. It contains an item about privacy being an essential human right.

icebraining 8y ago
That's already been ruled out by the SCOTUS. "Eleanor Roosevelt, Chairman of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights when the Declaration was drafted, spoke for the United States and stated that the Declaration "was not a treaty or international agreement and did not impose legal obligations; it was rather a statement of principles."
- ajdlinux 8y ago
  There is however the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which is an international treaty. However, in practice, the ICCPR functions much like the UDHR - a statement of principles rather than a treaty which provides for proper enforcement. The US apparently specifically indicated when it ratified the ICCPR that it didn't consider the treaty "self-executing" as a matter of US domestic law and thus you can't enforce it directly in the US courts.

duncan_bayne 8y ago

This is an outsider's perspective (I'm Australian) but it seems as though more and more is being done through Executive Orders - the Korean War, the EPA, Obamacare - instead of through proper channels. As far as I can tell, this is because Constitutional amendments are hard to enact (in the case of the EPA and Obamacare) and for reasons I don't understand, Congress doesn't seem to want to declare war any more. Is that a fair assessment, or am I getting only part of the picture?

ellius 8y ago
Sure, but those aren't the only two options. You can just pass normal laws. They don't have to be amendments. That's also difficult, though, due to the extreme partisanship in our political environment, but it's theoretically the fitting solution.
- duncan_bayne 8y ago
  My understanding was that at least some of those - Obamacare and the EPA - required either an Executive Order or a Constitutional amendment, because the powers required were not granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Agreed that declarations of war can just be declarations of war, no amendments required. It strikes me as odd that Congresscritters would be okay invading a country, but not okay with declaring war against them.
  - thoth 8y ago
    US Agencies don't need a Constitutional Amendment to come into existence - the usual method is simply a law that Congress passes that the President then signs. E.g. Dept of Energy, Dept of Education, Dept of Homeland Security, Dept of Housing and Urban Development, etc. going way back to the Dept of Foreign Affairs (precursor to Dept of State). Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) was also created by Congress - bill passed in both houses, signed by the President, upheld by the Supreme Court. That's basically a textbook example of how the system is supposed to work. I'm not sure why the EPA (and others, like FEMA) were created by Executive Order instead. As far as why Congress hasn't declared war since WW2, they've basically rolled up their say into the War Powers Act and the War Powers Resolution which provides for them being informed and issuing continuing approvals. They can then support the President (as Commander in Chief) but not officially declare war.