4 ms·

I have a lot of respect for Aaron swartz, but: > They have no constitution to answer to. Do we seriously believe any government follows it's constitution? Wha

I have a lot of respect for Aaron swartz, but: > They have no constitution to answer to. Do we seriously believe any government follows it's constitution? What is the mechanism for redress should it fail to do so? > They’re not elected. Neither are most operators in the government. And even for those operators that are elected, the role of government has expanded to the point where any given elected official has authority over so many concerns that the one you care about is going to be diluted to the point where you may not even want to vote for the thing you care about the most.

folleno00 6y ago
It says answer to, not follows If the people demand they answer to it, it’s that or off with their heads, usually. The hard part is getting people to demand they answer. Lots of cool gadgets and the belief we’re making each other better to dispose of.
skinkestek 6y ago
> Do we seriously believe any government follows it's constitution? Absolutely. Many do. Look at America and their second amendment: there's no way that would fly today if it wasn't in the constitution. Luckily it is and power hungry politicians have to accept it. Same with the first amendment. Some of these are even are powerful today than before and I hope the fourth amendment will soon see a renaissance. > What is the mechanism for redress should it fail to do so? Courts. Also it affects politicians directly. There was a petition here to give a mountain on the Finnish border to the Finnish people. Many people advocated for this but in the end it was struck down because politicians aren't even allowed to give away land and they know it.
- Consultant32452 6y ago
  >Look at America and their second amendment In America the right to an abortion is more respected under our legal system than the right to a gun despite what is written in the Constitution. The law is downstream of culture, and that document only says what 5 Justices say it says.
  - skinkestek 6y ago
    I don't disagree with the first part. I think you are right but don't talk more about it: it brings up the ugliest discussions at this place. For the second part they seem to be lucky to get a good judge now that will not let her own ideas interfere much with her job and instead interpret the constitution as it was written.
    - zimpenfish 6y ago
      > interpret the constitution as it was written Does this mean she'll be ruling that owning people is ok, removing the vote from women, and striking down the 2nd Amendment?
      - Consultant32452 6y ago
        The constitution as it was written allows for amendments. The 13th and 19th Amendments outlawed slavery and gave women the right to vote, respectively.
        zimpenfish 6y ago
        But those amendments didn't exist when it "was written" - if you're an Originalist claiming to interpret the Constitution "as it was written", that excludes amendments. If you change it to "as it is written", sure, that includes them but you lose the claim to be an Originalist given the timestamps on everything after the 12th Amendment since that's 76 years later and I'm reasonably sure none of the framers were alive then.
        Consultant32452 6y ago
        The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. It was written then. The fact that other parts were ratified at different times doesn't stop you from interpreting each part "as it was written." But you know that.
      - Clubber 6y ago

folleno00 6y ago

It says answer to, not follows If the people demand they answer to it, it’s that or off with their heads, usually. The hard part is getting people to demand they answer. Lots of cool gadgets and the belief we’re making each other better to dispose of.

skinkestek 6y ago

> Do we seriously believe any government follows it's constitution? Absolutely. Many do. Look at America and their second amendment: there's no way that would fly today if it wasn't in the constitution. Luckily it is and power hungry politicians have to accept it. Same with the first amendment. Some of these are even are powerful today than before and I hope the fourth amendment will soon see a renaissance. > What is the mechanism for redress should it fail to do so? Courts. Also it affects politicians directly. There was a petition here to give a mountain on the Finnish border to the Finnish people. Many people advocated for this but in the end it was struck down because politicians aren't even allowed to give away land and they know it.

Consultant32452 6y ago
>Look at America and their second amendment In America the right to an abortion is more respected under our legal system than the right to a gun despite what is written in the Constitution. The law is downstream of culture, and that document only says what 5 Justices say it says.
- skinkestek 6y ago
  I don't disagree with the first part. I think you are right but don't talk more about it: it brings up the ugliest discussions at this place. For the second part they seem to be lucky to get a good judge now that will not let her own ideas interfere much with her job and instead interpret the constitution as it was written.
  - zimpenfish 6y ago
    > interpret the constitution as it was written Does this mean she'll be ruling that owning people is ok, removing the vote from women, and striking down the 2nd Amendment?
    - Consultant32452 6y ago
      The constitution as it was written allows for amendments. The 13th and 19th Amendments outlawed slavery and gave women the right to vote, respectively.
      - zimpenfish 6y ago
        But those amendments didn't exist when it "was written" - if you're an Originalist claiming to interpret the Constitution "as it was written", that excludes amendments. If you change it to "as it is written", sure, that includes them but you lose the claim to be an Originalist given the timestamps on everything after the 12th Amendment since that's 76 years later and I'm reasonably sure none of the framers were alive then.
        Consultant32452 6y ago
        The 19th Amendment was ratified in 1920. It was written then. The fact that other parts were ratified at different times doesn't stop you from interpreting each part "as it was written." But you know that.
    - Clubber 6y ago