5 ms·

> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. A

> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. Actually, it's nonsense to think anything to the contrary. Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Your outlandish logic nullifies any power that the government may have over it's people. It nullifies the social contract. > The Constitution, for the most part, just states norms and procedures that the the country and government have decided to follow voluntarily, not because some authority will punish it if it doesn't. It's not a document of 'norms' and 'procedures'. It's a structure of how our Republic is built. Either we have a structure or we undermine it. That's really it, full stop. Amendments are apart of that structure to build or take away for what that structure is to be. Not 'ought to be' not 'suggested' not 'maybe if you'd like to follow', it's a mutually agreed upon Law. [edited: minor edits for added clarity]

xxpor 6y ago
>Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. Congress and the Supreme Court commonly disagree on the constitutionality of laws. What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. >Your outlandish logic nullifies any power that the government may have over it's people. It nullifies the social contract. There is no social contract based on the constitution. It's just that enough people agree that it has value, so it does. That's not a social contract. No regular people voted on the Constitution. You don't have the ability to reject it if you don't agree with it.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > No regular people voted on the Constitution. Nitpick. The people who were sent as representatives from each state to help write and ratify the constitution were chosen by the people of that state. So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it.
  - xxpor 6y ago
    Not the same thing IMO. Ignoring the issue of who was allowed to vote in the 1780s, there's a reason why the House was voted on by the people and the Senate the state legislatures. They recognized then the two groups have different interests.
    - heimatau 6y ago
      > Colan R said: So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it. >> xxpor said: Not the same thing IMO. It actually is. This country is not a direct democracy. You are trying to reinterpret the structure of this Republic. The people through their votes uphold the structure every time they vote. It's a collective decision (social contract) to have our vote to have representation and we 'trust' (for lack of a better term) said Rep. to perpetuate the ability of governing. [edited: accidental pasted something additionally]
    - salawat 6y ago
      State Senators were still voted on by the People, and part of the vote of confidence for taking part in the State Senate was a recognition of their capability to choose who represented the State at the National level based on understanding of the State's business. To be honest, I kind of wonder whether it was better to let the State Legislature decide. Wasn't alive then though and haven't done the research.
      - heimatau 6y ago
        > State Senators were still voted on by the People...I kind of wonder whether it was better to let the State Legislature decide. It seems you don't understand the difference between how the people directly elected US Senators since 1913 versus a State Republic that was voted on. These are two very different things. I say very because one is more Democratic and the other is more Republic. A Republic is an indirect mechanism whereas Democratic is a direct mechanism.
      - kelnos 6y ago
- heimatau 6y ago
  >Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Let's totally 'nitpick' because the structure that our entire government is built upon the Constitution. "The first, The Articles of Confederation, was in effect from March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified it. The second, The Constitution, replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1788." [1] If this 7 year gap is something that's causing you issues, just know that today that we aren't judged by 1900 laws. We're judged by the living document called the Constitution, as it 'replaced the Articles when it was ratified', and auxiliary laws via State/Local govts. But the backbone is the Constitution. >Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. In theory, sure. But Dred Scott said one thing (no Black person is free, even in the North) and the people in the North said something else with their 2nd amendment rights. >What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. Actually I'm not. A law can (and in many cases, already does) include what appropriate punishments should be for a law that is broken. > There is no social contract based on the constitution. It's just that enough people agree that it has value, so it does. That's not a social contract. No regular people voted on the Constitution. You don't have the ability to reject it if you don't agree with it. These statements are entirely false. 1) Your first sentence and your second sentence are contradicting each other. ~'no social contract' vs ~'what a social contract is'. 2) As for the latter two sentences. We vote everyday with our citizenship. You either agree to that living document or you don't by your allegiance. No one is forcing you to be a US citizen ruled by Constitution, namely after an adult legal age. Constitution is just American's structure, it can be changed but within it's already given framework. The country could become a Communist rule of law, if it got ratified, whether an individual liked it or not. [1] - https://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html https://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html
  - shkkmo 6y ago
    > No one is forcing you to be a US citizen ruled by Constitution, namely after an adult legal age. Rejecting US citizenship is difficult and costly, this places it practically out of reach of most US citizens
    - 6y ago
- rexpop 6y ago
  > the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. This isn't a nitpick, this is simply irrational. The Articles of Confederation were the founding document of an institution called the "league of friendship," and although the Constitution inherits ideas from the Articles, they have no legal bearing on the latter. They're out of scope. Meanwhile, the Constitution literally constitutes the foundations of an institution called "the U.S. federal government" which, discounting some rather academic Theseus' Ship arguments, is what governs us, today. The constitution was no the first document written on this continent, but it is the last document in which we've invested our collective institution-reifying intention at the national level.
  - heimatau 6y ago
    This was very eloquent. I appreciate this description.
    - rexpop 6y ago
      Thank you for saying so. It warms my heart to be read, since I try to be meticulous.
- rexpop 6y ago
  > There is no social contract based on the constitution. It's just that enough people agree that it has value, so it does. That's definitely the definition of a social _construct_, if not a social contract, but it amounts to the same thing.
- jtuple 6y ago
  > What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. Overall agree that we shouldn't be throwing members of Congress in jail over good-faith disagreements of constitutionality, etc. However, "Supreme Court oligarchy" is a stretch. Even if their rulings could send lawmakers to jail. Amending the Constitution is always an option, and that's a 100% Legislative (Federal + 38 States) action that neither the courts nor the President can block. With enough consensus, the Legislature (and by proxy, the electorate) technically have all the power. 1. Constitutional + simple majority + Presidential support = law. 2. Constitutional + 2/3 majority = law. 3. Unconstitutional + 2/3 majority + 38 states = law. But, broad consensus among the electorate is hard to come by these days, especially on contentious issues. Instead, both parties rail against "activist judges", stack the courts every opportunity they get, and regularly pass laws/programs with debatable constitutionality to constantly push the boundaries. This is likely the correct "play to win" strategy too. I just wish people played the game as intended. So, definitely understand the appeal for some sort of "punishment" against bad faith lawmaking, etc. Even if untenable in reality.
- salawat 6y ago
  >Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. Actually, the legislative branch is the final authority on what is Constitutional or not. Who do you think proposes, passes, organizes Constitutional Conventions, and ratifies Amendments? It certainly isn't the Courts. Heck, judicial review isn't even enshrined in the Constitution, It just arose spontaneously out of case law; and everyone has been okay with it by and large such that there hasn't been the will to pass a "no judicial review" Amendment. I mean, it seems silly to talk about, but it is right there. Though yes, for the last 200 year's, the Supreme Court striking down something as unconstitutional has generally been accepted as burying something six feet under politically, because no one in their right mind wants to carry the mark of "The person who changed the Constitution just to invalidate a Supreme Court decision."
ardy42 6y ago
>> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. > Actually, it's nonsense to think anything to the contrary. Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Your outlandish logic nullifies any power that the government may have over it's people. It nullifies the social contract. Huh? You're right that the Constitution defines the social contract, but it's still nonsense that violations by branches of the government itself should result in jail time. Checks and balances is supposed to ensure compliance, and honestly any attempt to add jail time to the mix would probably have all kinds of disastrous consequences to the balance of those checks. If this governmental system is to by dynamic enough to survive, its parts need the ability to probe the boundaries as needed. That can't happen if the people who make them up are paralyzed in personal fear of being jailed for a misstep. The framers themselves recognized that, since the Constitution isn't full of threats of criminal penalties. Even impeachment is deliberately just a removal from office. > It's not a document of 'norms' and 'procedures'. It's a structure of how our Republic is built. It's both of those things. If all the branches of government conspired to violate the Constitution, all that would happen is the country enters into an undefined state. If they were willing to do that, do you think they'd enforce penalties of jail against themselves for their violations? The Constitution itself isn't going to leap out of its case to arrest them.
- ColanR 6y ago
  > If they were willing to do that, do you think they'd enforce penalties of jail against themselves for their violations? The Constitution itself isn't going to leap out of its case to arrest them. The people will, though. As I mentioned elsewhere, the final authority in the US are the people who chose their representatives in the government. If the highest level of government decides to break the law, then the people themselves enforce it.
- heimatau 6y ago
  > honestly any attempt to add jail time to the mix would probably have all kinds of disastrous consequences to the balance of those checks. If this governmental system is to by dynamic enough to survive, its parts need the ability to probe the boundaries as needed. That can't happen if the people who make them up are paralyzed in personal fear of being jailed for a misstep. > The framers themselves recognized that, since the Constitution isn't full of threats of criminal penalties. Even impeachment is deliberately just a removal from office. I separated the quotes to add emphasis. The founders leaned very much in the direction of aristocratic, not all but it was the prevailing thought hence Republic instead of direct democracy. As for the 'disastrous consequences', 'Constitution isn't full of threats', and 'impeachment is deliberately just a removal from office'. I understand your points and they are historically accurate. One can see through the 'norm' that was created by President Ford pardoning President Nixon, that this understanding persists even in more recent history. My words are a desire to see an amendment/law/ruling to go further in holding these leaders of our government accountable. As it's toxic to maintaining the social contract within our society, IMHO. If we are lenient on political corruption, even the foundations will crumble, IMHO.
gnopgnip 6y ago
Then can the capitol hill police throw congress in jail anytime they decide a law congress made was illegal? No. There is a system of checks and balances to address unconstitutional laws, and to correct laws that are bad but not illegal.

xxpor 6y ago

>Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. Congress and the Supreme Court commonly disagree on the constitutionality of laws. What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. >Your outlandish logic nullifies any power that the government may have over it's people. It nullifies the social contract. There is no social contract based on the constitution. It's just that enough people agree that it has value, so it does. That's not a social contract. No regular people voted on the Constitution. You don't have the ability to reject it if you don't agree with it.

ColanR 6y ago
> No regular people voted on the Constitution. Nitpick. The people who were sent as representatives from each state to help write and ratify the constitution were chosen by the people of that state. So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it.
- xxpor 6y ago
  Not the same thing IMO. Ignoring the issue of who was allowed to vote in the 1780s, there's a reason why the House was voted on by the people and the Senate the state legislatures. They recognized then the two groups have different interests.
  - heimatau 6y ago
    > Colan R said: So technically, through representative democracy, the regular people did agree to the constitution because their representatives agreed on it. >> xxpor said: Not the same thing IMO. It actually is. This country is not a direct democracy. You are trying to reinterpret the structure of this Republic. The people through their votes uphold the structure every time they vote. It's a collective decision (social contract) to have our vote to have representation and we 'trust' (for lack of a better term) said Rep. to perpetuate the ability of governing. [edited: accidental pasted something additionally]
  - salawat 6y ago
    State Senators were still voted on by the People, and part of the vote of confidence for taking part in the State Senate was a recognition of their capability to choose who represented the State at the National level based on understanding of the State's business. To be honest, I kind of wonder whether it was better to let the State Legislature decide. Wasn't alive then though and haven't done the research.
    - heimatau 6y ago
      > State Senators were still voted on by the People...I kind of wonder whether it was better to let the State Legislature decide. It seems you don't understand the difference between how the people directly elected US Senators since 1913 versus a State Republic that was voted on. These are two very different things. I say very because one is more Democratic and the other is more Republic. A Republic is an indirect mechanism whereas Democratic is a direct mechanism.
    - kelnos 6y ago
heimatau 6y ago
>Nitpick, the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. Let's totally 'nitpick' because the structure that our entire government is built upon the Constitution. "The first, The Articles of Confederation, was in effect from March 1, 1781, when Maryland ratified it. The second, The Constitution, replaced the Articles when it was ratified by New Hampshire on June 21, 1788." [1] If this 7 year gap is something that's causing you issues, just know that today that we aren't judged by 1900 laws. We're judged by the living document called the Constitution, as it 'replaced the Articles when it was ratified', and auxiliary laws via State/Local govts. But the backbone is the Constitution. >Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. The courts are. In theory, sure. But Dred Scott said one thing (no Black person is free, even in the North) and the people in the North said something else with their 2nd amendment rights. >What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. Actually I'm not. A law can (and in many cases, already does) include what appropriate punishments should be for a law that is broken. > There is no social contract based on the constitution. It's just that enough people agree that it has value, so it does. That's not a social contract. No regular people voted on the Constitution. You don't have the ability to reject it if you don't agree with it. These statements are entirely false. 1) Your first sentence and your second sentence are contradicting each other. ~'no social contract' vs ~'what a social contract is'. 2) As for the latter two sentences. We vote everyday with our citizenship. You either agree to that living document or you don't by your allegiance. No one is forcing you to be a US citizen ruled by Constitution, namely after an adult legal age. Constitution is just American's structure, it can be changed but within it's already given framework. The country could become a Communist rule of law, if it got ratified, whether an individual liked it or not. [1] - https://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html https://www.usconstitution.net/constconart.html
- shkkmo 6y ago
  > No one is forcing you to be a US citizen ruled by Constitution, namely after an adult legal age. Rejecting US citizenship is difficult and costly, this places it practically out of reach of most US citizens
  - 6y ago
rexpop 6y ago
> the constitution isn't a founding document. There was that whole Articles of Confederation thing. This isn't a nitpick, this is simply irrational. The Articles of Confederation were the founding document of an institution called the "league of friendship," and although the Constitution inherits ideas from the Articles, they have no legal bearing on the latter. They're out of scope. Meanwhile, the Constitution literally constitutes the foundations of an institution called "the U.S. federal government" which, discounting some rather academic Theseus' Ship arguments, is what governs us, today. The constitution was no the first document written on this continent, but it is the last document in which we've invested our collective institution-reifying intention at the national level.
- heimatau 6y ago
  This was very eloquent. I appreciate this description.
  - rexpop 6y ago
    Thank you for saying so. It warms my heart to be read, since I try to be meticulous.
rexpop 6y ago
> There is no social contract based on the constitution. It's just that enough people agree that it has value, so it does. That's definitely the definition of a social _construct_, if not a social contract, but it amounts to the same thing.
jtuple 6y ago
> What you're proposing is essentially a oligarchy lead by the Supreme Court. Overall agree that we shouldn't be throwing members of Congress in jail over good-faith disagreements of constitutionality, etc. However, "Supreme Court oligarchy" is a stretch. Even if their rulings could send lawmakers to jail. Amending the Constitution is always an option, and that's a 100% Legislative (Federal + 38 States) action that neither the courts nor the President can block. With enough consensus, the Legislature (and by proxy, the electorate) technically have all the power. 1. Constitutional + simple majority + Presidential support = law. 2. Constitutional + 2/3 majority = law. 3. Unconstitutional + 2/3 majority + 38 states = law. But, broad consensus among the electorate is hard to come by these days, especially on contentious issues. Instead, both parties rail against "activist judges", stack the courts every opportunity they get, and regularly pass laws/programs with debatable constitutionality to constantly push the boundaries. This is likely the correct "play to win" strategy too. I just wish people played the game as intended. So, definitely understand the appeal for some sort of "punishment" against bad faith lawmaking, etc. Even if untenable in reality.
salawat 6y ago
>Congress isn't the final authority of if laws are constitutional or not. Actually, the legislative branch is the final authority on what is Constitutional or not. Who do you think proposes, passes, organizes Constitutional Conventions, and ratifies Amendments? It certainly isn't the Courts. Heck, judicial review isn't even enshrined in the Constitution, It just arose spontaneously out of case law; and everyone has been okay with it by and large such that there hasn't been the will to pass a "no judicial review" Amendment. I mean, it seems silly to talk about, but it is right there. Though yes, for the last 200 year's, the Supreme Court striking down something as unconstitutional has generally been accepted as burying something six feet under politically, because no one in their right mind wants to carry the mark of "The person who changed the Constitution just to invalidate a Supreme Court decision."

ardy42 6y ago

>> If the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law..." and Congress still makes a law, what are you going to do, throw Congress in jail? That's nonsense. > Actually, it's nonsense to think anything to the contrary. Either our founding document matters as the backbone of our Laws or it doesn't. Your outlandish logic nullifies any power that the government may have over it's people. It nullifies the social contract. Huh? You're right that the Constitution defines the social contract, but it's still nonsense that violations by branches of the government itself should result in jail time. Checks and balances is supposed to ensure compliance, and honestly any attempt to add jail time to the mix would probably have all kinds of disastrous consequences to the balance of those checks. If this governmental system is to by dynamic enough to survive, its parts need the ability to probe the boundaries as needed. That can't happen if the people who make them up are paralyzed in personal fear of being jailed for a misstep. The framers themselves recognized that, since the Constitution isn't full of threats of criminal penalties. Even impeachment is deliberately just a removal from office. > It's not a document of 'norms' and 'procedures'. It's a structure of how our Republic is built. It's both of those things. If all the branches of government conspired to violate the Constitution, all that would happen is the country enters into an undefined state. If they were willing to do that, do you think they'd enforce penalties of jail against themselves for their violations? The Constitution itself isn't going to leap out of its case to arrest them.

ColanR 6y ago
> If they were willing to do that, do you think they'd enforce penalties of jail against themselves for their violations? The Constitution itself isn't going to leap out of its case to arrest them. The people will, though. As I mentioned elsewhere, the final authority in the US are the people who chose their representatives in the government. If the highest level of government decides to break the law, then the people themselves enforce it.
heimatau 6y ago
> honestly any attempt to add jail time to the mix would probably have all kinds of disastrous consequences to the balance of those checks. If this governmental system is to by dynamic enough to survive, its parts need the ability to probe the boundaries as needed. That can't happen if the people who make them up are paralyzed in personal fear of being jailed for a misstep. > The framers themselves recognized that, since the Constitution isn't full of threats of criminal penalties. Even impeachment is deliberately just a removal from office. I separated the quotes to add emphasis. The founders leaned very much in the direction of aristocratic, not all but it was the prevailing thought hence Republic instead of direct democracy. As for the 'disastrous consequences', 'Constitution isn't full of threats', and 'impeachment is deliberately just a removal from office'. I understand your points and they are historically accurate. One can see through the 'norm' that was created by President Ford pardoning President Nixon, that this understanding persists even in more recent history. My words are a desire to see an amendment/law/ruling to go further in holding these leaders of our government accountable. As it's toxic to maintaining the social contract within our society, IMHO. If we are lenient on political corruption, even the foundations will crumble, IMHO.

gnopgnip 6y ago

Then can the capitol hill police throw congress in jail anytime they decide a law congress made was illegal? No. There is a system of checks and balances to address unconstitutional laws, and to correct laws that are bad but not illegal.