4 ms·

Even though the corporate conduct of Facebook has been abhorrent, the company is not guilty of a crime that's on the books. I wonder if the Constitution could

Even though the corporate conduct of Facebook has been abhorrent, the company is not guilty of a crime that's on the books. I wonder if the Constitution could be amended to grant the US Congress the power to "impeach" and indict any US citizen or legal entity for any reason whatsoever. Congress already has the power to prosecute the President and remove him, but this power doesn't extend beyond the Oval Office. Nonetheless, I firmly believe that the idea that Congress should be able to prosecute and punish US citizens, by way of fine, prison time, or another punishment, for actions that do not technically breach an existing law but which nonetheless run afoul of morals, ethics, or common decency, is worth pondering. I won't hide that I desperately want to see Mark Zuckerberg serve hard prison time for everything he's done.

ncallaway 5y ago
That’s a “bill of attainder” and explicitly unconstitutional. Obviously, the constitution could be amended to grant Congress the power to issue bills of attainder, rather than forbidden from doing so. I’d argue very very strongly against doing so.
0x0 5y ago
So you want to just throw out the whole separation of powers concept?
- HenryKissinger 5y ago
  Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. I think some exceptional situations should warrant a similar treatment.
  - 0x0 5y ago
    Scary choice of freedoms and liberties for citizens you are willing to give up there.
  - ncallaway 5y ago
    > Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. This seems badly mistaken to me on two counts: - Congress doesn't appropriate itself the powers. The Constitution assigns those powers to Congress. - The powers and privileges of Congress, in the case of Presidential Impeachment aren't so much "judge, jury, and executioner" as much as they are "HR representative making a firing decision". Presidential Impeachment removes the President from Office, but it does not "execute" them, "put them in jail", or even attach any civil or criminal penalties to them. Less "executioner" and more "firing manager".
BLKNSLVR 5y ago
for actions that do not technically breach an existing law Consider the implications of what you've said here. Punishment outside of law breaks all kinds of long-developed social and democratic safeguards. It's one of those "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"[0] type situations. [0]: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government

ncallaway 5y ago

That’s a “bill of attainder” and explicitly unconstitutional. Obviously, the constitution could be amended to grant Congress the power to issue bills of attainder, rather than forbidden from doing so. I’d argue very very strongly against doing so.

0x0 5y ago

So you want to just throw out the whole separation of powers concept?

HenryKissinger 5y ago
Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. I think some exceptional situations should warrant a similar treatment.
- 0x0 5y ago
  Scary choice of freedoms and liberties for citizens you are willing to give up there.
- ncallaway 5y ago
  > Congress already appropriates itself the powers and privileges of judge, jury and executioner in the case of presidential impeachment. This seems badly mistaken to me on two counts: - Congress doesn't appropriate itself the powers. The Constitution assigns those powers to Congress. - The powers and privileges of Congress, in the case of Presidential Impeachment aren't so much "judge, jury, and executioner" as much as they are "HR representative making a firing decision". Presidential Impeachment removes the President from Office, but it does not "execute" them, "put them in jail", or even attach any civil or criminal penalties to them. Less "executioner" and more "firing manager".

BLKNSLVR 5y ago

for actions that do not technically breach an existing law Consider the implications of what you've said here. Punishment outside of law breaks all kinds of long-developed social and democratic safeguards. It's one of those "democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"[0] type situations. [0]: https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government https://richardlangworth.com/worst-form-of-government