4 ms·

For the sake of the rule of law, we need to reform our constitutions into something we will actually follow. A mix of lofty and silly aspirations that nobody ca

For the sake of the rule of law, we need to reform our constitutions into something we will actually follow. A mix of lofty and silly aspirations that nobody can take seriously is far worse than something less ambitious but precise. I am 100% for a constitutional amendment that abridges the freedom of assembly in pandemics, provided that pandemics have a mathematical definition that is hard to abuse.

shadowgovt 7y ago
Honestly, for the US at least, the existing system is sloppy but workable. * In times of crisis, the government abuses the Bill of Rights in a state of emergency * People who feel sufficiently aggrieved can sue (once, y'know, order has been restored and courts are functioning) * Sometimes, there is precedent showing the government overstepped and the plaintiff gets a nice payout to make them whole It's win-win, in the sense that whatever the emergency was that necessitated infringement of rights can be mitigated and the aggrieved can essentially be retroactively bribed to be okay to be a part of a society that has survived a situation that exceeded the planned-for circumsntances the Constitution was written to handle.
- malandrew 7y ago
  I'd say it would have to be restricted to only novel airborne infectious diseases with an R0 greater than approximately 2.5.
briandear 7y ago
Something with barely a 1% death rate ought not count.
- macintux 7y ago
  The irony of course is that 1% is only achievable if we take it seriously enough to try to keep it under that percentage; otherwise our health care system might well collapse under the load, and lead to large numbers of unnecessary deaths. But more importantly: 3.5 million deaths in the U.S. alone (1%) doesn’t strike you as a pandemic?
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    Offhand thought reading yet another argument that this will be okay because it's going to cull the herd of the weak and unworthy. Is that we don't have some much a problem with old, sick and frail people as we do smug arrogant people.
    - jamiek88 7y ago
      I legit heard something similar from an obese, diabetic smoker who is 50+. The mind boggles.
      - Gibbon1 7y ago
        I had to go to the pharmacy to pick up my meds[1]. Guy in line that checked all the boxes was trying to tell everyone in like that the whole thing was silly. [1] I have an appointment with an endocrinologist in April. Most of her patients are diabetic and or over 60. I'm fretting a bit.
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  Asserting that 3.5 million deaths ought not to trigger our country’s most aggressive emergency response systems is vile and disgusting.
hibikir 7y ago
Newer constitutions have this features. For instance, a prime minister that can put a state of emergency limiting rights for 2 weeks without approval, but needs a significant majority in the house and senate to extend it further. Spain’s first two weeks are almost up, but no major party in the house sees the measures as excessive or partisan, so the next 15 day extension will pass very easily.

shadowgovt 7y ago

Honestly, for the US at least, the existing system is sloppy but workable. * In times of crisis, the government abuses the Bill of Rights in a state of emergency * People who feel sufficiently aggrieved can sue (once, y'know, order has been restored and courts are functioning) * Sometimes, there is precedent showing the government overstepped and the plaintiff gets a nice payout to make them whole It's win-win, in the sense that whatever the emergency was that necessitated infringement of rights can be mitigated and the aggrieved can essentially be retroactively bribed to be okay to be a part of a society that has survived a situation that exceeded the planned-for circumsntances the Constitution was written to handle.

malandrew 7y ago
I'd say it would have to be restricted to only novel airborne infectious diseases with an R0 greater than approximately 2.5.

briandear 7y ago

Something with barely a 1% death rate ought not count.

macintux 7y ago
The irony of course is that 1% is only achievable if we take it seriously enough to try to keep it under that percentage; otherwise our health care system might well collapse under the load, and lead to large numbers of unnecessary deaths. But more importantly: 3.5 million deaths in the U.S. alone (1%) doesn’t strike you as a pandemic?
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  Offhand thought reading yet another argument that this will be okay because it's going to cull the herd of the weak and unworthy. Is that we don't have some much a problem with old, sick and frail people as we do smug arrogant people.
  - jamiek88 7y ago
    I legit heard something similar from an obese, diabetic smoker who is 50+. The mind boggles.
    - Gibbon1 7y ago
      I had to go to the pharmacy to pick up my meds[1]. Guy in line that checked all the boxes was trying to tell everyone in like that the whole thing was silly. [1] I have an appointment with an endocrinologist in April. Most of her patients are diabetic and or over 60. I'm fretting a bit.
wbronitsky 7y ago
Asserting that 3.5 million deaths ought not to trigger our country’s most aggressive emergency response systems is vile and disgusting.

hibikir 7y ago

Newer constitutions have this features. For instance, a prime minister that can put a state of emergency limiting rights for 2 weeks without approval, but needs a significant majority in the house and senate to extend it further. Spain’s first two weeks are almost up, but no major party in the house sees the measures as excessive or partisan, so the next 15 day extension will pass very easily.