5 ms·
Unsurprisingly, this is pretty horrifying for anyone who cares about either the 1st or 4th amendments (and the 5th amendment considerations of 'you can't blind
by hawkice 6y ago
Unsurprisingly, this is pretty horrifying for anyone who cares about either the 1st or 4th amendments (and the 5th amendment considerations of 'you can't blind yourself to bad content stuff', that's amazingly bad). It blows my mind this isn't a separations of powers concern to even allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be.
- beervirus 6y agoIt blows my mind that anyone who purports to care about the first amendment would argue that we shouldn’t “allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be.”
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- ti00 6y agoThere is a difference between an individual acting in their individual capacity and an entire department of the federal government.
- vcxy 6y agoThe rights protected in the first amendment don't apply to a department of the executive branch drafting language for the legislative branch.
- beervirus 6y agoThe comment was about “these people,” not the DOJ qua DOJ.
- vcxy 6y agoI guess I don't get it. I thought (and it still seems) that "these people" refers to the DOJ. To be clear, I don't agree with the person you replied to, so we probably agree in the end, I just didn't agree with your comment as I read it either. But I guess I'm not parsing something correctly here...
- gwright 6y agoWhat are you getting at here? That the Constitution doesn't prevent Congress from passing a law that prohibits the DOJ from participating in the formulation of public policy? This just seems like a nonsensical rabbit hole to explore to me.
- vcxy 6y agoIt seemed to me that the claim was: You can't support the first amendment and be against DOJ participating in legislation. My point was that you in fact can hold that position. The first amendment doesn't extend so far as to make this position illogical. To be clear, I'm not claiming I hold that position. In fact, I fully agree with your comment in reply to the top level comment we're under.
- gwright 6y ago> It blows my mind this isn't a separations of powers concern to even allow these people to draft language or make any statements on the record of what they think the law ought to be. That seem to be an untenable position. Legislation is drafted with input from lots of different groups including the agencies that might be enforcing the legislation. Proposing legislative changes isn't infringing on the powers of the Legislature.
- hawkice 6y agoYou want to pay a cop to write the law? Put it under their seal, the one they use to exercise police powers? Sure, other people vote on it. But it stinks.
- aspaceman 6y agoTheir point is that it's just about as old as the laws here, and that you can still have effective legislation even if it's primed for corruption. You could make the same argument about most American systems of government, but pointing and saying corruption could exist is not the same as showing how it does.
- webmaven 6y ago> You want to pay a cop to write the law? Put it under their seal, the one they use to exercise police powers? > Sure, other people vote on it. But it stinks. Wait, do you think that police departments and police unions don't participate in drafting laws?