4 ms·

It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. But taxpayers will pay the g

It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. But taxpayers will pay the government’s legal bills, while the politicians in charge can show they are “pro-union” - every administration does something like this for the political benefits, whether they claim to be “pro-union” or “pro-business”.

ceejayoz 6y ago
> It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. The National Labor Relations Act has survived court challenges since 1935. I doubt it'll go down here.
geofft 6y ago
As a US taxpayer, I love paying the government's legal bills. Prosecuting violations of the laws that my elected representatives have voted on, and defending the constitutionality of those laws, is one of the highest-impact things the government can spend my tax revenue on - it's certainly far more value for money than paying a trillion dollars for an airplane.
- refurb 6y ago
  You love paying when the govt defends the war on drugs and asset forfeiture?
  - geofft 6y ago
    I don't believe that it's either a consistent position or a practically effective tactic to say that I support the government when it does things I like, but not when it does things I dislike. I think I'm obligated to support the government when it enforces laws that are constitutional and supported by the people as determined by our representative system, even if I disagree strongly with the outcome. If I disagree so strongly that I feel like I can't support it, then my position should be that I believe the government itself is unjust, and it would be hypocritical and long-term ineffective for me to support an unjust government when it does just things, because that would make the government appear just and thus make it harder to replace the government with an actually just one. If policies like the war on drugs and asset forfeiture are (as I suspect) not actually supported by the people, then my route is to convince my fellow voters that we should get rid of those laws/policies. Perhaps we should elect representatives who will do a better job of doing what we want; perhaps we should let our existing representatives know how we stand. My route is definitely not to support leaving those laws on the books as I cheer on the government failing to enforce those laws. That doesn't question the laws I don't like, that questions the entire notion of the rule of law. (In particular, one moral issue I have with both the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is the way that those laws lend themselves to selective enforcement - so it certainly does not help my cause for the government to happen not to enforce them today but to retain the option in the future!) If they are supported by the people, but they're not constitutional, then I do not, in fact, support the government spending my tax revenues defending unconstitutional laws, and I attempt to vote for executives (presidents who appoint attorneys, district attorneys that I can vote for directly, etc.) who know better than to defend unconstitutional laws. And I do also monetarily support organizations that sue the government in court. In this particular case, as a sibling comment noted, it seems hard to believe that the NLRA violates the First Amendment and nobody's noticed in almost a century. If a law is supported by the people and constitutional, then my only legitimate avenue is to try to change the people's minds - it's not legitimate for me to sidestep debate on the merits of the law and say "Oh, my poor tax dollars! How expensive enforcing this law would be!" (And asset forfeiture pays for itself, so it's not like that argument would even work.)
    - refurb 6y ago
      So if there is an immoral law, say the ban on gay marriage, you will support the gov't enforcing that law until such time the law is overturned? Which as we saw can be years if not decades? I mean, if that's your position, that's your position.
      - geofft 6y ago
        If it's an unconstitutional law, then no, I don't particularly support the government enforcing that, and I think the executive should be smart enough to decline to defend unconstitutional laws so the courts can overturn them more quickly - see e.g. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-litigation-involving-defense-marriage-act https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-li... about DOMA section 3 in particular. (That said, as it happens, I am supportive of the end result of Hodges trying to defend his state's law all the way to the Supreme Court, because it caused all such laws nationwide, including all of DOMA, to be declared unconstitutional.) If it's an "immoral" but constitutional law, then I'm in a harder place. As a leftist Christian I'm pretty aware that my personal views on morality are not particularly widely shared by my fellow citizens (even though I happen to agree about DOMA being immoral), and part of the deal of living in a constitutional democracy (as opposed to an absolute monarchy or a theocracy) is that I don't get to impose the entirety of my morality on others and they don't get to impose theirs on me. And that's a great deal for me, knowing just how many Christians think merely being left-leaning is immoral and just how many left-leaning folks think merely being Christian is immoral. Our society has decided to enshrine a subset of widely-agreed morality into the Constitution - that certain laws are so unjust that they may not be made - and then we agree that the rest of it is up to the mechanisms of democracy. So if it's constitutional, I'll certainly do my best to argue that the law should be repealed, through the legislative process, and I'll try to convince others to convince their representatives in turn to repeal the law. But if it's constitutional, and it's popular - what exactly should I advocate when I say the government shouldn't enforce it? Should I say that the government should spontaneously decide not to enforce this one law? Besides the obvious problem of it remaining on the books unchallenged, which would have made the process of overturning it even longer, it seems directly contrary to the rule of law to support laws going unenforced because of one person's view of morality. What happens when someone convinces the SEC it's immoral to go after ICOs because the growth of cryptocurrency is important to humanity, or whatever? What happens when someone convinces the IRS it's immoral to enforce tax laws against business owners, based on the morality described in Atlas Shrugged? Were I to support the principle of not enforcing laws that someone calls immoral, I suspect it would not actually achieve my political goals. Should I say that the government should get out of the business of enforcing all laws about a certain subject? That also would go poorly - in the case of DOMA, I'd be saying that the government should not regulate marriage at all and should refrain from enforcing laws that ban child marriages, non-consensual marriages of adults, polygamy, immigration fraud, and so forth. I won't say that. Should I say that the Constitution should be amended to enshrine my view of morality? Sure, but I think that's an extremely arduous process, and I think it's great that it requires so much of the country to agree on it, because, again, I don't want to be subject to other people's view of morality. I'll happily try to convince enough people that we should amend the Constitution, but it's easier - by design - to convince enough people that we should just repeal the law.
justapassenger 6y ago
While legal result is unknown. I think it’s unlikely for this to fall under 1st amendment. Same as I cannot use 1st amendment to get out of hostile work environment charges.

ceejayoz 6y ago

> It will be a good symbolic battle for the government, which I’m sure they will eventually lose in court on first amendment grounds. The National Labor Relations Act has survived court challenges since 1935. I doubt it'll go down here.

geofft 6y ago

As a US taxpayer, I love paying the government's legal bills. Prosecuting violations of the laws that my elected representatives have voted on, and defending the constitutionality of those laws, is one of the highest-impact things the government can spend my tax revenue on - it's certainly far more value for money than paying a trillion dollars for an airplane.

refurb 6y ago
You love paying when the govt defends the war on drugs and asset forfeiture?
- geofft 6y ago
  I don't believe that it's either a consistent position or a practically effective tactic to say that I support the government when it does things I like, but not when it does things I dislike. I think I'm obligated to support the government when it enforces laws that are constitutional and supported by the people as determined by our representative system, even if I disagree strongly with the outcome. If I disagree so strongly that I feel like I can't support it, then my position should be that I believe the government itself is unjust, and it would be hypocritical and long-term ineffective for me to support an unjust government when it does just things, because that would make the government appear just and thus make it harder to replace the government with an actually just one. If policies like the war on drugs and asset forfeiture are (as I suspect) not actually supported by the people, then my route is to convince my fellow voters that we should get rid of those laws/policies. Perhaps we should elect representatives who will do a better job of doing what we want; perhaps we should let our existing representatives know how we stand. My route is definitely not to support leaving those laws on the books as I cheer on the government failing to enforce those laws. That doesn't question the laws I don't like, that questions the entire notion of the rule of law. (In particular, one moral issue I have with both the war on drugs and asset forfeiture is the way that those laws lend themselves to selective enforcement - so it certainly does not help my cause for the government to happen not to enforce them today but to retain the option in the future!) If they are supported by the people, but they're not constitutional, then I do not, in fact, support the government spending my tax revenues defending unconstitutional laws, and I attempt to vote for executives (presidents who appoint attorneys, district attorneys that I can vote for directly, etc.) who know better than to defend unconstitutional laws. And I do also monetarily support organizations that sue the government in court. In this particular case, as a sibling comment noted, it seems hard to believe that the NLRA violates the First Amendment and nobody's noticed in almost a century. If a law is supported by the people and constitutional, then my only legitimate avenue is to try to change the people's minds - it's not legitimate for me to sidestep debate on the merits of the law and say "Oh, my poor tax dollars! How expensive enforcing this law would be!" (And asset forfeiture pays for itself, so it's not like that argument would even work.)
  - refurb 6y ago
    So if there is an immoral law, say the ban on gay marriage, you will support the gov't enforcing that law until such time the law is overturned? Which as we saw can be years if not decades? I mean, if that's your position, that's your position.
    - geofft 6y ago
      If it's an unconstitutional law, then no, I don't particularly support the government enforcing that, and I think the executive should be smart enough to decline to defend unconstitutional laws so the courts can overturn them more quickly - see e.g. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-litigation-involving-defense-marriage-act https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/statement-attorney-general-li... about DOMA section 3 in particular. (That said, as it happens, I am supportive of the end result of Hodges trying to defend his state's law all the way to the Supreme Court, because it caused all such laws nationwide, including all of DOMA, to be declared unconstitutional.) If it's an "immoral" but constitutional law, then I'm in a harder place. As a leftist Christian I'm pretty aware that my personal views on morality are not particularly widely shared by my fellow citizens (even though I happen to agree about DOMA being immoral), and part of the deal of living in a constitutional democracy (as opposed to an absolute monarchy or a theocracy) is that I don't get to impose the entirety of my morality on others and they don't get to impose theirs on me. And that's a great deal for me, knowing just how many Christians think merely being left-leaning is immoral and just how many left-leaning folks think merely being Christian is immoral. Our society has decided to enshrine a subset of widely-agreed morality into the Constitution - that certain laws are so unjust that they may not be made - and then we agree that the rest of it is up to the mechanisms of democracy. So if it's constitutional, I'll certainly do my best to argue that the law should be repealed, through the legislative process, and I'll try to convince others to convince their representatives in turn to repeal the law. But if it's constitutional, and it's popular - what exactly should I advocate when I say the government shouldn't enforce it? Should I say that the government should spontaneously decide not to enforce this one law? Besides the obvious problem of it remaining on the books unchallenged, which would have made the process of overturning it even longer, it seems directly contrary to the rule of law to support laws going unenforced because of one person's view of morality. What happens when someone convinces the SEC it's immoral to go after ICOs because the growth of cryptocurrency is important to humanity, or whatever? What happens when someone convinces the IRS it's immoral to enforce tax laws against business owners, based on the morality described in Atlas Shrugged? Were I to support the principle of not enforcing laws that someone calls immoral, I suspect it would not actually achieve my political goals. Should I say that the government should get out of the business of enforcing all laws about a certain subject? That also would go poorly - in the case of DOMA, I'd be saying that the government should not regulate marriage at all and should refrain from enforcing laws that ban child marriages, non-consensual marriages of adults, polygamy, immigration fraud, and so forth. I won't say that. Should I say that the Constitution should be amended to enshrine my view of morality? Sure, but I think that's an extremely arduous process, and I think it's great that it requires so much of the country to agree on it, because, again, I don't want to be subject to other people's view of morality. I'll happily try to convince enough people that we should amend the Constitution, but it's easier - by design - to convince enough people that we should just repeal the law.

justapassenger 6y ago

While legal result is unknown. I think it’s unlikely for this to fall under 1st amendment. Same as I cannot use 1st amendment to get out of hostile work environment charges.