5 ms·

The legislative branch [ie: the people writing the laws] are the "check" on... the people writing the unconstitutional laws? The courts must have the authority

The legislative branch [ie: the people writing the laws] are the "check" on... the people writing the unconstitutional laws? The courts must have the authority to review these cases, anything else is completely incoherent. > Not perfect, but allowing any member of the public to expose classified secrets via lawsuits would certainly be an attack vector for foreign adversaries. If foreign adversaries are trying to overturn illegal domestic dragnet surveillance, maybe I should be paying my taxes to them.

8ytecoder 5y ago
The check against bad laws is voting public. The check against misuse of a dragnet law by the executive is the legislative branch and not the court - that’s what the OP seems to be saying. Courts can’t keep state secrets by design.
mabub24 5y ago
In principle, the legislative branch represent the people and are checked by elections. In practice, there are party lines and the influence of far too much money; but, the logic is that legislators pushing unconstitutional laws would be voted out, or limited by the other legislators. A lot of the foundational concepts in liberal democracies are justified on the assumption that citizens are engaged and conscientious electors (that is, intelligent and able to make up their own minds), and as a result unconstitutional legislation is a form of political suicide, or a real manifestation of democratic will which lead to constitutional amendments. It operates on the idea that doing x in that particular way "is not who we are". Because you can see that they are unconstitutional laws, means that you can vote and engage politically to stop or pull back that law. Modern political realities have tested those assumptions. A two party deadlocked system, decline of civic education, and unchecked money in elections, are amongst many culprits.
- willcipriano 5y ago
  Just finished last night a series of lectures on Thomas Jefferson[0] and I believe he felt the primary countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal government. In his time the federal government was dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero interaction with it during their lives. State and local governments can be moved away from, and this voting with your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny. The US long ago shrugged off the sort of republicanism Jefferson witnessed in his time and never really replaced it with anything else. [0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1966657.Thomas_Jefferson https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1966657.Thomas_Jefferson [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    > State and local governments can be moved away from, and this voting with your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny. This is not an option for the people who would be most affected by policies where they would benefit by moving, the poor.
    - WillPostForFood 5y ago
      Poor people move. The dust bowl migration is the largest example of it. Geographic mobility has declined, but the poorest are still the most likely to move. Men who moved to another county or state, by age group: Overall and by selected earnings quartile, various periods 1994–2016 (annual average percentages) https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1-chart01.gif https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1-chart01.gi... https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I would expect them to be a large portion of those that do move, but as you can see, their mobility has collapsed, even during years of overall economic growth. I assume it has continued to go down beyond 2016. I think population differences and pretty much all land having been settled/allocated now compared to the Dust Bowl period make them incomparable.
        willcipriano 5y ago
        The nation the put together the underground railroad can't chip in for some bus tickets and U-Haul rentals?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I do not know what your comment is exactly meant to imply, but the biggest hurdle in moving is cost of housing, which usually requires proof of income to secure.
- syshum 5y ago
  >>the legislative branch represent the people and are checked by elections In order for a "check" to be valid, the "check" has to have full knowledge of the thing they are checking.. Further the "people" are not the check to the Legislature, the Court is. That is how our system it setup The people was to only be a "check" for their own congressman in the house, and since not even the full house is able to get classified briefing just a select few, and they can not tell anyone about what happens there, it is literally impossible for the "people" to be considered the check in that system So there is no check in theory or in practice
chitowneats 5y ago
The executive branch, particularly in the contemporary U.S., largely decides what policy outcome they would like first. Then they go digging for an existing statute or 3 letter agency they can use to implement it. The legislative branch is at fault here for punting on their governing responsibilities. But it is true that via their oversight committees, they have constrained the actions of the executive, via new laws, based on classified intel. Foreign adversaries have no interest in domestic surveillance. There are many other things they'd like to get their hands on via discovery, though.
optimiz3 5y ago
> maybe I should be paying my taxes to them This is possible via emigration. The highest profile adversaries of the US don't have a better track record when it comes to domestic surveillance however.

8ytecoder 5y ago

The check against bad laws is voting public. The check against misuse of a dragnet law by the executive is the legislative branch and not the court - that’s what the OP seems to be saying. Courts can’t keep state secrets by design.

mabub24 5y ago

In principle, the legislative branch represent the people and are checked by elections. In practice, there are party lines and the influence of far too much money; but, the logic is that legislators pushing unconstitutional laws would be voted out, or limited by the other legislators. A lot of the foundational concepts in liberal democracies are justified on the assumption that citizens are engaged and conscientious electors (that is, intelligent and able to make up their own minds), and as a result unconstitutional legislation is a form of political suicide, or a real manifestation of democratic will which lead to constitutional amendments. It operates on the idea that doing x in that particular way "is not who we are". Because you can see that they are unconstitutional laws, means that you can vote and engage politically to stop or pull back that law. Modern political realities have tested those assumptions. A two party deadlocked system, decline of civic education, and unchecked money in elections, are amongst many culprits.

willcipriano 5y ago
Just finished last night a series of lectures on Thomas Jefferson[0] and I believe he felt the primary countermeasure to this problem was a limited federal government. In his time the federal government was dramatically smaller and the average person had nearly zero interaction with it during their lives. State and local governments can be moved away from, and this voting with your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny. The US long ago shrugged off the sort of republicanism Jefferson witnessed in his time and never really replaced it with anything else. [0]https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1966657.Thomas_Jefferson https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1966657.Thomas_Jefferson [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > State and local governments can be moved away from, and this voting with your feet is an effective deterant to tyranny. This is not an option for the people who would be most affected by policies where they would benefit by moving, the poor.
  - WillPostForFood 5y ago
    Poor people move. The dust bowl migration is the largest example of it. Geographic mobility has declined, but the poorest are still the most likely to move. Men who moved to another county or state, by age group: Overall and by selected earnings quartile, various periods 1994–2016 (annual average percentages) https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1-chart01.gif https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1-chart01.gi... https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v80n2/v80n2p1.html
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      I would expect them to be a large portion of those that do move, but as you can see, their mobility has collapsed, even during years of overall economic growth. I assume it has continued to go down beyond 2016. I think population differences and pretty much all land having been settled/allocated now compared to the Dust Bowl period make them incomparable.
      - willcipriano 5y ago
        The nation the put together the underground railroad can't chip in for some bus tickets and U-Haul rentals?
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I do not know what your comment is exactly meant to imply, but the biggest hurdle in moving is cost of housing, which usually requires proof of income to secure.
syshum 5y ago
>>the legislative branch represent the people and are checked by elections In order for a "check" to be valid, the "check" has to have full knowledge of the thing they are checking.. Further the "people" are not the check to the Legislature, the Court is. That is how our system it setup The people was to only be a "check" for their own congressman in the house, and since not even the full house is able to get classified briefing just a select few, and they can not tell anyone about what happens there, it is literally impossible for the "people" to be considered the check in that system So there is no check in theory or in practice

chitowneats 5y ago

The executive branch, particularly in the contemporary U.S., largely decides what policy outcome they would like first. Then they go digging for an existing statute or 3 letter agency they can use to implement it. The legislative branch is at fault here for punting on their governing responsibilities. But it is true that via their oversight committees, they have constrained the actions of the executive, via new laws, based on classified intel. Foreign adversaries have no interest in domestic surveillance. There are many other things they'd like to get their hands on via discovery, though.

optimiz3 5y ago

> maybe I should be paying my taxes to them This is possible via emigration. The highest profile adversaries of the US don't have a better track record when it comes to domestic surveillance however.