3 ms·

The executive branch. Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. I don't care who found it uncon

The executive branch. Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. I don't care who found it unconstitutional, there should be criminal punishment after a court rules that a crime was committed. Of course either side can appeal all the way to the supreme court using any laws or precedent. But if the final verdict is that a government official violated a citizens right, that official should be punished. If a law maker intentionally proposed a law that violates constitutional rights, there should be consequences. If a judge rules or operates intentionally to violate these rights there should be a punishment. Just like doctors face malpractice lawsuits and felony charges, so should govetnment officials that intentionally violate citizes' rights. I saw a video the other day where a cop arrested a person for insulting him. Worst case he would lose his job, but no punishment! This NSA case is a small example of a systemic disease.

sjy 6y ago
Government officials do face charges when they commit crimes such as abuse of public office. A court decision on the interpretation of the Constitution is not a “ruling that a crime was committed.” Drawing on your doctor analogy, it’s more like new evidence showing that a particular treatment is not as safe as previously believed. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the doctor is criminally or civilly liable for providing that treatment in the past – something more, like negligence or recklessness, is needed.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  You misunderstand, I meant a court ruling that an official intentionally violated rights of citizens, that is the crime. Constitutionality of something can be established, intentionap disregard of the constitution or a court ruling regarding constitutional matters is the proposed crime I am talking about.
  - kelnos 6y ago
    That's reasonable, but I think you underestimate the difficulty in proving malicious intent.
macspoofing 6y ago
>Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. But we don't live in a world where things work like you think they should work. In this world, there was no crime, and a court opinion of some aspects of one kind of law does not lead to criminal indictment. That is a better world then the imaginary world that lives in your head. You do realize government is run by humans in a messy world, trying to figure things and and deal with all kinds life-and-death stuff - like terrorism (which is the context for that law in the first place). Let's set aside 9/11 and terrorism and look at government policy around this pandemic. This pandemic has led to unprecedented government abrogation of civil and citizen rights. It is unprecedented that government would forcibly lock-down huge swaths of the economy for dubious reasons, and destroying countless lives - as well as control what HEALTHY people do with their bodies. Do you know why nobody gives a shit? Because nobody gives a shit about what lawyers on a court have to say when people are fearful for their lives. We see this during wartime (and civil war was a great example), and other extraordinary situations. The only power the constitution has, is the power that is imbued into int by the populations willingly submitting to it and willingly raising it up as a model. When life-or-death situations arise, the constitution takes a back-seat.
- badrabbit 6y ago
  The constitution is a contract between the people and govetnment where both parties operating under rule of law agree to abide by those terms. Nobody gives a shit because if government breaks the terms of this contract there is no direct consequence. But if the people break this contract there is all sorts of punishment. I don't agree with you about shutting down the economy and mask wearing (because government has constitutional authority to regulate commerce and they can make you wear seatbelts and prevent you from drinking and driving, that same authority allows them to tell you to wear a mask and avoid killing grandma) but if you are right,a lot of people would be very careful to avoid violating your rights if there was consequence.
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    Again, you imagined a world that doesn't exist. Your interpretation of how things should work, is just that, YOUR personal interpretation. You're literally arguing that if a decades old law is overturned by a court, it should result in criminal indictments of ... who exactly? Congress that passed and funded this law? What the heck.

sjy 6y ago

Government officials do face charges when they commit crimes such as abuse of public office. A court decision on the interpretation of the Constitution is not a “ruling that a crime was committed.” Drawing on your doctor analogy, it’s more like new evidence showing that a particular treatment is not as safe as previously believed. It doesn’t necessarily follow that the doctor is criminally or civilly liable for providing that treatment in the past – something more, like negligence or recklessness, is needed.

badrabbit 6y ago
You misunderstand, I meant a court ruling that an official intentionally violated rights of citizens, that is the crime. Constitutionality of something can be established, intentionap disregard of the constitution or a court ruling regarding constitutional matters is the proposed crime I am talking about.
- kelnos 6y ago
  That's reasonable, but I think you underestimate the difficulty in proving malicious intent.

macspoofing 6y ago

>Following orders or implementing a law that violates citizens right should come with criminal consequence. But we don't live in a world where things work like you think they should work. In this world, there was no crime, and a court opinion of some aspects of one kind of law does not lead to criminal indictment. That is a better world then the imaginary world that lives in your head. You do realize government is run by humans in a messy world, trying to figure things and and deal with all kinds life-and-death stuff - like terrorism (which is the context for that law in the first place). Let's set aside 9/11 and terrorism and look at government policy around this pandemic. This pandemic has led to unprecedented government abrogation of civil and citizen rights. It is unprecedented that government would forcibly lock-down huge swaths of the economy for dubious reasons, and destroying countless lives - as well as control what HEALTHY people do with their bodies. Do you know why nobody gives a shit? Because nobody gives a shit about what lawyers on a court have to say when people are fearful for their lives. We see this during wartime (and civil war was a great example), and other extraordinary situations. The only power the constitution has, is the power that is imbued into int by the populations willingly submitting to it and willingly raising it up as a model. When life-or-death situations arise, the constitution takes a back-seat.

badrabbit 6y ago
The constitution is a contract between the people and govetnment where both parties operating under rule of law agree to abide by those terms. Nobody gives a shit because if government breaks the terms of this contract there is no direct consequence. But if the people break this contract there is all sorts of punishment. I don't agree with you about shutting down the economy and mask wearing (because government has constitutional authority to regulate commerce and they can make you wear seatbelts and prevent you from drinking and driving, that same authority allows them to tell you to wear a mask and avoid killing grandma) but if you are right,a lot of people would be very careful to avoid violating your rights if there was consequence.
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Again, you imagined a world that doesn't exist. Your interpretation of how things should work, is just that, YOUR personal interpretation. You're literally arguing that if a decades old law is overturned by a court, it should result in criminal indictments of ... who exactly? Congress that passed and funded this law? What the heck.