4 ms·

(Sorry, no links, but this is fairly uncontroversial US history:) There was a big debate around the bill of rights. Proponents felt it was essential, because o

(Sorry, no links, but this is fairly uncontroversial US history:) There was a big debate around the bill of rights. Proponents felt it was essential, because otherwise the government would violate those rights. Opponents either didn’t feel this was a justified fear, actively wanted more state power, or claimed that enshrining certain rights explicitly implies that they were the only ones reserved to the people. That last objection was the basis for the Tenth Amendment. That said, in practice, what the government can and can’t do is decided not by the text of the Constitution but by the string of precedents that control its legal interpretation. In other words, reading the Constitution gives you at best a very basic intuition of how the US political system works, and this intuition will often be very very wrong. So, you’re theoretically right, but it doesn’t affect the practical reality on the ground even in principle.

raxxorrax 7y ago
While true, if the constitution is not fulfilled in the eyes of the citizens, it can just flush all those legal governmental proceedings down the toilet, including the whole body of government. Some even argue it to be their duty. That is the basis of every democracy. Consent of the governed and all that.
- ptero 7y ago
  <tin foil on> Supposedly democratic governments learned a few tricks on how they could manipulate the opinions of the governed to avoid being thrown out. Some fear works. Wars, too (that is, when at war people will cut their government extra slack), so they claim wars on {drugs,terrorism,...}. They also leverage mass media. This is not a relationship of control, just symbiosis: fear is still pretty easy to sell. <tin foil off>
Psyladine 7y ago
>or claimed that enshrining certain rights explicitly implies that they were the only ones reserved to the people. Which is the situation we're in. If you don't have a positively asserted specific legal right, it doesn't otherwise exist, except in how limited your behaviors are by law. "The sky is the limit" vs "the limit is the sky"

raxxorrax 7y ago

While true, if the constitution is not fulfilled in the eyes of the citizens, it can just flush all those legal governmental proceedings down the toilet, including the whole body of government. Some even argue it to be their duty. That is the basis of every democracy. Consent of the governed and all that.

ptero 7y ago
<tin foil on> Supposedly democratic governments learned a few tricks on how they could manipulate the opinions of the governed to avoid being thrown out. Some fear works. Wars, too (that is, when at war people will cut their government extra slack), so they claim wars on {drugs,terrorism,...}. They also leverage mass media. This is not a relationship of control, just symbiosis: fear is still pretty easy to sell. <tin foil off>

Psyladine 7y ago

>or claimed that enshrining certain rights explicitly implies that they were the only ones reserved to the people. Which is the situation we're in. If you don't have a positively asserted specific legal right, it doesn't otherwise exist, except in how limited your behaviors are by law. "The sky is the limit" vs "the limit is the sky"