4 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.

by 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.
- patmorgan23 6y ago
  The solution here is on fixing the parties/elections not imposing penalties on office holders. Higher quality candidates need to be on the ballot and make their way into office.
- salawat 6y ago
  >The founders leaned very much in the direction of aristocratic... Besides Hamilton, they absolutely did not. They were just anti-direct-democratic because they were well aware of the logistical problems, and structural ills of prior democracies. There is no concept of "Nobility" in the United States. We have Civil Servants. People who as a consequence of their office, in many ways have much higher legal exposure than the normal citizen. All Citizens may take any office with only mild qualifications on Age, literacy, and how one is chosen to get there. That is the exact opposite of Aristocratic. That leaning is a much more recent thing that has emerged out of nearly half a century of political and economic consolidation through wage stagnation and technological advancement paired with a complete dismantling of top-to-bottom wealth redistribution, whether by market forces/government action notwithstanding. >>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. The founders actually culturally understood this believe it or not. If you look back in history, you can find numerous examples of incitement to refuse to engage in base behavior in executing the duties of office. It isn't universal, but the examples are relatively generous in frequency of having been recorded. You can also find many of the Founders personal papers and nuggets of wisdom warning that there is no greater danger to the Union than to the undermining of it's legitimacy through unwise or impulsive action or political theater. Abraham Lincoln came to treat his responsibility to the country as something close to religious. Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson all realized that a State would only last as long as the people running it could comport themselves as more-than-a-person in the fulfillment of their duties to the populace, and that the populace remained United in their respect and maintenance of each other's liberties, even in the face of taking on personal risk for the preservation of their fellow man's freedom. Lincoln himself saw litigation and to a point legislation as a fundamental breakdown. The raising of an exception, if you will, of such a magnitude that it took the body of the Nation coordinated through it's elected Government to resolve the ill so rampant that not even a town could alone fix the issue.

by ardy42 6y ago

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.

patmorgan23 6y ago
The solution here is on fixing the parties/elections not imposing penalties on office holders. Higher quality candidates need to be on the ballot and make their way into office.
salawat 6y ago
>The founders leaned very much in the direction of aristocratic... Besides Hamilton, they absolutely did not. They were just anti-direct-democratic because they were well aware of the logistical problems, and structural ills of prior democracies. There is no concept of "Nobility" in the United States. We have Civil Servants. People who as a consequence of their office, in many ways have much higher legal exposure than the normal citizen. All Citizens may take any office with only mild qualifications on Age, literacy, and how one is chosen to get there. That is the exact opposite of Aristocratic. That leaning is a much more recent thing that has emerged out of nearly half a century of political and economic consolidation through wage stagnation and technological advancement paired with a complete dismantling of top-to-bottom wealth redistribution, whether by market forces/government action notwithstanding. >>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. The founders actually culturally understood this believe it or not. If you look back in history, you can find numerous examples of incitement to refuse to engage in base behavior in executing the duties of office. It isn't universal, but the examples are relatively generous in frequency of having been recorded. You can also find many of the Founders personal papers and nuggets of wisdom warning that there is no greater danger to the Union than to the undermining of it's legitimacy through unwise or impulsive action or political theater. Abraham Lincoln came to treat his responsibility to the country as something close to religious. Franklin, Washington, Hamilton, and Jefferson all realized that a State would only last as long as the people running it could comport themselves as more-than-a-person in the fulfillment of their duties to the populace, and that the populace remained United in their respect and maintenance of each other's liberties, even in the face of taking on personal risk for the preservation of their fellow man's freedom. Lincoln himself saw litigation and to a point legislation as a fundamental breakdown. The raising of an exception, if you will, of such a magnitude that it took the body of the Nation coordinated through it's elected Government to resolve the ill so rampant that not even a town could alone fix the issue.