4 ms·

The Supreme Court has expressly ruled these constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/w

The Supreme Court has expressly ruled these constitutional: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_Police_v._Sitz https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michigan_Department_of_State_P... You can think it was a bad decision (3 judges dissented) that should be overruled, but they are currently constitutional.

mindslight 8y ago
The Supreme Court ruling something constitutional does not mean that it is constitutional. It's every citizen's duty to understand the law for themselves, in order to know when the government has exceeded its mandate.
- pmiller2 8y ago
  Good luck with that.
  - escape_goat 8y ago
    Most concise rebuttal.
- pseudolus 8y ago
  With all due respect the Supreme Court ruling that something is constitutional does make it constitutional regardless of how wrong the decision may be perceived with the benefit of hindsight or even contemporaneously (see a horrible decision like Dredd Scott v. Sandford [0]). The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality and even the reversal of a Supreme Court decision by the same body some years after does not render the previous decision unconstitutional. To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. For legal purposes, you mean. And yes, lower courts would have to follow that fiction. But I would not have to personally agree that white is black, nor would I have to state that the Constitution was written in white ink. So why when the Supreme Court says that a given action is in line with the Constitution, do I have no choice but to agree? I do agree that courts will follow the SC and I think it's fair to call said action "legal" in that it is allowed by the current legal system. But you're asserting that I cannot state my opinion that a given action is not in line with the intention of the Constitution by using the term "constitutional" because it cannot be removed from the legal context. This seems akin to stating that a given program is "working correctly" when it malfunctions due to bad memory. We can construct our assumptions so that this statement is correct, it just seems pointless to do so compared to a more descriptive "this problem isn't due to the code itself". (Of course the real question becomes what happens to the interpretation of private contracts - does the intended qualia prevail, or are the words taken as strict references to terms in White's Law Dictionary?)
- anigbrowl 8y ago
  It really does. To quote Justice Robert H Jackson ''we are not final because we are supreme, we are supreme because we are final.' Sure, after that it becomes politics and you can demonstrate in the streets about it, but the right to drive fast isn't exactly the moral crisis of our times so I don't think you're gonna pick up a whole lot of supporters.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    Erm, of course a justice of the Supreme Court would say that. If you don't believe of the People's independent ability to judge the law, then I would ask why is the text of the Constitution so widely published? Why doesn't the public simply forget about it, and wholly defer to what the clergy decree? If the Supreme Court still wants to use the document as their basis they can do so, but to the rest of us it's irrelevant. > the right to drive fast isn't exactly the moral crisis of our times so I don't think you're gonna pick up a whole lot of supporters This isn't about driving fast nor drunk, but about creeping totalitarianism. This is the moral crisis of our times, as computing and communications technology have created the ability for the state's tentacles to invade every minute aspect of our everyday lives. The Bill of Rights is best viewed as a bunch of test cases to judge whether the administrative structure fulfills the purpose of its design. In my opinion, every described right is basically being oppressed in some way or another, for the convenience of those in power. For example, I don't think that being forced into chain-link cages or kicked by horses is in line with the right to peacefully assemble. An individual is obviously not capable of enforcing their personal judgment across society - the point is to keep one's own perspective straight. This corruption is not of the magnitude that causes violent revolution yet, although people do seem quite polarized these days. Perhaps peaceful agorism can head off collapse, if we're lucky.
    - escape_goat 8y ago
      > If you don't believe of the People's independent ability to judge the law, then I would ask why is the text of the Constitution so widely published? All of us here have independent confidence in our own understanding of the Constitution, and lack confidence in at least one other person's understanding of the Constitution. Thus there is no meaningful way in which we could be said to "believe [in] the People's independent ability to judge the law." It is clear that no such collective judgement exists.
- escape_goat 8y ago
  Seven Supreme Court justices, products of the same era, training, experience, and institutions, cannot in all cases unanimously agree that a thing is (or is not) constitutional. Let us pause to imagine for a moment the comity arrived at by "every citizen," having taught themselves law in accordance with their civic duty, in considering the same matters. How are we to imagine a thing to be (or not be) constitutional, in such a circumstance? If most citizens think a thing constitutional, does that make it so? Or have they merely 'ruled' that it was constitutional, in your view, should your own self-taught understanding persuade you differently? I agree in general that there is a civic duty to understand principles of government, to understand the nature and limits of law and justice, and to grasp (if not embrace) the fundamentals of ethical reasoning. However, in this instance what you seem really to be saying is that you hold your own judgement to be absolute and superior with regards to what is and isn't constitutional. I am not going to impugn the quality of your personal reasoning or education. The problem is that that just isn't how it works. None of the rest of us are interested in having that be how it works, and as a pragmatic matter it simply would not 'work' in any meaningful way. It would not result in a system in which most of us could agree and get along. The overwhelming majority view, from the time of the framing of the Constitution onwards, has been that Section 2 of Article 2 conveys the power of interpretation upon the federal judiciary in instances where the need for interpretation arises within the constraints imposed elsewhere upon their power. The other view is not a 'view' in the sense of a workable alternative. It is a stubborn naysaying, notionally on principle, that renders the entire system of law and governance unworkable. We don't want it.
  - mindslight 8y ago
    > If most citizens think a thing constitutional, does that make it so? It means that most citizens think a thing constitutional. You seem to have an assumption that saying "X is constitutional" can only represent some universal fact rather than a personal opinion. > Or have they merely 'ruled' that it was constitutional I mean yes, this is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are talked about - whether the Court will rule certain way. A court can rule that pi equals 3 and lower courts will even have to follow that precedent in their own decisions, but it would obviously be foolish for anyone else to repeat this as factual. What you're doing is akin to equating legality and morality, a standard technique to quash dissent. Categorically ruling out that a code could be wrong prevents being able to critically discuss it. > It is a stubborn naysaying, notionally on principle, that renders the entire system of law and governance unworkable. Yes, it is an all-too-common refrain that dissent hinders effective governing.
- rhizome 8y ago
  Nobody knows "the law." Even the Supes each have clerks helping them look stuff up.

mindslight 8y ago

The Supreme Court ruling something constitutional does not mean that it is constitutional. It's every citizen's duty to understand the law for themselves, in order to know when the government has exceeded its mandate.

pmiller2 8y ago
Good luck with that.
- escape_goat 8y ago
  Most concise rebuttal.
pseudolus 8y ago
With all due respect the Supreme Court ruling that something is constitutional does make it constitutional regardless of how wrong the decision may be perceived with the benefit of hindsight or even contemporaneously (see a horrible decision like Dredd Scott v. Sandford [0]). The Supreme Court is the final arbiter of constitutionality and even the reversal of a Supreme Court decision by the same body some years after does not render the previous decision unconstitutional. To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
- mindslight 8y ago
  > To be blunt, if the Supreme Court says that black is white and white is black then for constitutional purposes black is white and white is black. For legal purposes, you mean. And yes, lower courts would have to follow that fiction. But I would not have to personally agree that white is black, nor would I have to state that the Constitution was written in white ink. So why when the Supreme Court says that a given action is in line with the Constitution, do I have no choice but to agree? I do agree that courts will follow the SC and I think it's fair to call said action "legal" in that it is allowed by the current legal system. But you're asserting that I cannot state my opinion that a given action is not in line with the intention of the Constitution by using the term "constitutional" because it cannot be removed from the legal context. This seems akin to stating that a given program is "working correctly" when it malfunctions due to bad memory. We can construct our assumptions so that this statement is correct, it just seems pointless to do so compared to a more descriptive "this problem isn't due to the code itself". (Of course the real question becomes what happens to the interpretation of private contracts - does the intended qualia prevail, or are the words taken as strict references to terms in White's Law Dictionary?)
anigbrowl 8y ago
It really does. To quote Justice Robert H Jackson ''we are not final because we are supreme, we are supreme because we are final.' Sure, after that it becomes politics and you can demonstrate in the streets about it, but the right to drive fast isn't exactly the moral crisis of our times so I don't think you're gonna pick up a whole lot of supporters.
- mindslight 8y ago
  Erm, of course a justice of the Supreme Court would say that. If you don't believe of the People's independent ability to judge the law, then I would ask why is the text of the Constitution so widely published? Why doesn't the public simply forget about it, and wholly defer to what the clergy decree? If the Supreme Court still wants to use the document as their basis they can do so, but to the rest of us it's irrelevant. > the right to drive fast isn't exactly the moral crisis of our times so I don't think you're gonna pick up a whole lot of supporters This isn't about driving fast nor drunk, but about creeping totalitarianism. This is the moral crisis of our times, as computing and communications technology have created the ability for the state's tentacles to invade every minute aspect of our everyday lives. The Bill of Rights is best viewed as a bunch of test cases to judge whether the administrative structure fulfills the purpose of its design. In my opinion, every described right is basically being oppressed in some way or another, for the convenience of those in power. For example, I don't think that being forced into chain-link cages or kicked by horses is in line with the right to peacefully assemble. An individual is obviously not capable of enforcing their personal judgment across society - the point is to keep one's own perspective straight. This corruption is not of the magnitude that causes violent revolution yet, although people do seem quite polarized these days. Perhaps peaceful agorism can head off collapse, if we're lucky.
  - escape_goat 8y ago
    > If you don't believe of the People's independent ability to judge the law, then I would ask why is the text of the Constitution so widely published? All of us here have independent confidence in our own understanding of the Constitution, and lack confidence in at least one other person's understanding of the Constitution. Thus there is no meaningful way in which we could be said to "believe [in] the People's independent ability to judge the law." It is clear that no such collective judgement exists.
escape_goat 8y ago
Seven Supreme Court justices, products of the same era, training, experience, and institutions, cannot in all cases unanimously agree that a thing is (or is not) constitutional. Let us pause to imagine for a moment the comity arrived at by "every citizen," having taught themselves law in accordance with their civic duty, in considering the same matters. How are we to imagine a thing to be (or not be) constitutional, in such a circumstance? If most citizens think a thing constitutional, does that make it so? Or have they merely 'ruled' that it was constitutional, in your view, should your own self-taught understanding persuade you differently? I agree in general that there is a civic duty to understand principles of government, to understand the nature and limits of law and justice, and to grasp (if not embrace) the fundamentals of ethical reasoning. However, in this instance what you seem really to be saying is that you hold your own judgement to be absolute and superior with regards to what is and isn't constitutional. I am not going to impugn the quality of your personal reasoning or education. The problem is that that just isn't how it works. None of the rest of us are interested in having that be how it works, and as a pragmatic matter it simply would not 'work' in any meaningful way. It would not result in a system in which most of us could agree and get along. The overwhelming majority view, from the time of the framing of the Constitution onwards, has been that Section 2 of Article 2 conveys the power of interpretation upon the federal judiciary in instances where the need for interpretation arises within the constraints imposed elsewhere upon their power. The other view is not a 'view' in the sense of a workable alternative. It is a stubborn naysaying, notionally on principle, that renders the entire system of law and governance unworkable. We don't want it.
- mindslight 8y ago
  > If most citizens think a thing constitutional, does that make it so? It means that most citizens think a thing constitutional. You seem to have an assumption that saying "X is constitutional" can only represent some universal fact rather than a personal opinion. > Or have they merely 'ruled' that it was constitutional I mean yes, this is exactly how Supreme Court decisions are talked about - whether the Court will rule certain way. A court can rule that pi equals 3 and lower courts will even have to follow that precedent in their own decisions, but it would obviously be foolish for anyone else to repeat this as factual. What you're doing is akin to equating legality and morality, a standard technique to quash dissent. Categorically ruling out that a code could be wrong prevents being able to critically discuss it. > It is a stubborn naysaying, notionally on principle, that renders the entire system of law and governance unworkable. Yes, it is an all-too-common refrain that dissent hinders effective governing.
rhizome 8y ago
Nobody knows "the law." Even the Supes each have clerks helping them look stuff up.