4 ms·

Seems like the courts could make a distinction between "ok this was unclear" and "this was obvious, egregious and deserving of penalties." And while throwing C

Seems like the courts could make a distinction between "ok this was unclear" and "this was obvious, egregious and deserving of penalties." And while throwing Congress in jail seems unworkable, disqualifying members from reelection in egregious cases might be doable (though of course it would require a constitutional amendment).

ardy42 6y ago
> And while throwing Congress in jail seems unworkable, disqualifying members from reelection in egregious cases might be doable (though of course it would require a constitutional amendment). I don't think so. Do you really want the executive and the courts be able to disqualify representatives, essentially for political reasons, because they proposed legislation or supported legislation that a president has signed into law?
xxpor 6y ago
This is essentially the qualified immunity debate. SCOTUS has decided that unless the government defendant did something that SCOTUS in the past has specifically ruled is unconstitutional, you don't get to win a ruling against them. Where specifically is defined exceptionally narrowly.
- patmorgan23 6y ago
  That's not actually whay SCOTUS did when it created qualified immunity (which it has the authority to do, but congress also has the authority to overturn that). What you described is how it has evolved in the circuit courts.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    I agree that's not the original "plan" (or whatever you want to call it), but AFAIK SCOTUS has pretty much said the circuit courts are doing the right thing there.
srtjstjsj 6y ago
> election Congress was elected. If they are doing a bad job, the voters can recall them. There's no need for lower officials to deal with them. If the majority of the voters are wrong, then your "democratic nations of laws" is dead.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- cortesoft 6y ago
  The whole point of the bill of rights and many parts of the constitution is to protect ourselves from mob rule... just because 50.1% of the people think it is ok to remove the rights of 10% of the people doesn't mean they are allowed to do that. We have a lot of checks against the 'will of the majority'

ardy42 6y ago

> And while throwing Congress in jail seems unworkable, disqualifying members from reelection in egregious cases might be doable (though of course it would require a constitutional amendment). I don't think so. Do you really want the executive and the courts be able to disqualify representatives, essentially for political reasons, because they proposed legislation or supported legislation that a president has signed into law?

xxpor 6y ago

This is essentially the qualified immunity debate. SCOTUS has decided that unless the government defendant did something that SCOTUS in the past has specifically ruled is unconstitutional, you don't get to win a ruling against them. Where specifically is defined exceptionally narrowly.

patmorgan23 6y ago
That's not actually whay SCOTUS did when it created qualified immunity (which it has the authority to do, but congress also has the authority to overturn that). What you described is how it has evolved in the circuit courts.
- xxpor 6y ago
  I agree that's not the original "plan" (or whatever you want to call it), but AFAIK SCOTUS has pretty much said the circuit courts are doing the right thing there.

srtjstjsj 6y ago

> election Congress was elected. If they are doing a bad job, the voters can recall them. There's no need for lower officials to deal with them. If the majority of the voters are wrong, then your "democratic nations of laws" is dead.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
cortesoft 6y ago
The whole point of the bill of rights and many parts of the constitution is to protect ourselves from mob rule... just because 50.1% of the people think it is ok to remove the rights of 10% of the people doesn't mean they are allowed to do that. We have a lot of checks against the 'will of the majority'