6 ms·

Why do lawmakers try to get bills through the legislature when these bills are against the constitution?

nyokodo 5y ago
> Why do lawmakers try to get bills through the legislature when these bills are against the constitution? The real question is: why do political factions like to throw grenades that will just get thrown back at them?
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > The real question is: why do political factions like to throw grenades that will just get thrown back at them? They don't. The faction throwing these particular grenades has strong confidence that structural overrepresentation, gerrymandering, control of the courts, and other factors create a power asymmetry preventing the grenades from being thrown back at them with similar effect.
SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
> Why do lawmakers try to get bills through the legislature when these bills are against the constitution? Want to change the topic to gun control and see who switches sides?
- skinnymuch 5y ago
  Way to take a way more complicated situation and pretend it’s simple cut and dry.
  - SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
    Between banning books and firearms, and the unconstitutionality… which of the two is the enumerated right that ends with shall not be infringed? TO THE TOPIC… it isn’t making something too simple at all. In fact, I never stated my thoughts on an overview. Just that if you want to argue “who can possibly support Thea things” change the topic to something even more protected and look in the mirror.
    - skinnymuch 5y ago
      The first comment said gun control. Now it’s banning firearms. > topic to something even more protected This is part of the issue. It isn’t agreed upon that not having gun control is protected
johntb86 5y ago
The laws still work (somewhat) until they're overturned by the courts. Texas's abortion rate dropped by half after S.B. 8 was passed [0]; both S.B. 8 and this law have similar enforcement mechanisms that are designed to make it difficult for the courts to overturn them. [0]. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/29/upshot/texas-abortion-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/29/upshot/texas-...
krapp 5y ago
They believe the current Supreme Court, as stacked by Trump, won't strike them down. And considering the precedent set by Texas' unconstitutional abortion law, they may be correct.
dragonwriter 5y ago
(1) virtue signaling, and/or (2) publicly testing the influence of their faction in the courts. Note that #2 is often part of schemes to create electoral success by campaigning against the courts if they produce undesired results, which (given that the membership of the courts changes over time through politics) is a means of shifting the courts as well as the rest of government. Constitutions aren't self executing, they do, in practice, what people now decide they do, and, in the most immediate but broadly influential sense in the US system, that's mostly judges.
names_are_hard 5y ago
Honest question, I'm not a lawyer: is this bill actually unconstitutional? The government is not trying to limit the rights of individuals here, as far as I can tell parents and children are allowed to own and read whatever they want under this bill. Instead one arm of the government seeks to restrict another arm of the government (schools) by requiring it honor the wishes of (the most extreme of) the populace. Edit: never mind, the article says the bill would apply to private schools as well, so I can see that not holding up. I wonder if the idea is to start with overreach and then when the backlash starts they can "compromise" by letting private schools teach what they want.
- bko 5y ago
  The article says that it would impact public schools and public charter schools. The charter schools receive funding from the state, so they can just deny funding unless they meet certain criteria, which they already do. And that criteria could include not giving access to certain books to children. It's tough because most people don't have a choice to pick up and move if they don't like their school board. As a parent, schools are a very important issue to me as it strikes at the autonomy you have as a parent. Many would have an issue with teaching religion in schools, and others would have an issue teaching gender studies in school. The compromise would be to limit the scope of education to the non-objectionable: science, reading, writing, math and history. Normally I would want that decided upon on the local level, but given the nature of school zoning and difficulty of moving, I wouldn't be opposed to setting guidelines on a state level.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- iudqnolq 5y ago
  Public school students retain constitutional rights (although in a weaker form). > In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students… are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. - Supreme Court Majority Opinion, Tinker v. Des Moines https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supr...

> Why do lawmakers try to get bills through the legislature when these bills are against the constitution? The real question is: why do political factions like to throw grenades that will just get thrown back at them?

dragonwriter 5y ago
> The real question is: why do political factions like to throw grenades that will just get thrown back at them? They don't. The faction throwing these particular grenades has strong confidence that structural overrepresentation, gerrymandering, control of the courts, and other factors create a power asymmetry preventing the grenades from being thrown back at them with similar effect.

SV_BubbleTime 5y ago

> Why do lawmakers try to get bills through the legislature when these bills are against the constitution? Want to change the topic to gun control and see who switches sides?

skinnymuch 5y ago
Way to take a way more complicated situation and pretend it’s simple cut and dry.
- SV_BubbleTime 5y ago
  Between banning books and firearms, and the unconstitutionality… which of the two is the enumerated right that ends with shall not be infringed? TO THE TOPIC… it isn’t making something too simple at all. In fact, I never stated my thoughts on an overview. Just that if you want to argue “who can possibly support Thea things” change the topic to something even more protected and look in the mirror.
  - skinnymuch 5y ago
    The first comment said gun control. Now it’s banning firearms. > topic to something even more protected This is part of the issue. It isn’t agreed upon that not having gun control is protected

johntb86 5y ago

The laws still work (somewhat) until they're overturned by the courts. Texas's abortion rate dropped by half after S.B. 8 was passed [0]; both S.B. 8 and this law have similar enforcement mechanisms that are designed to make it difficult for the courts to overturn them. [0]. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/29/upshot/texas-abortion-data.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/10/29/upshot/texas-...

krapp 5y ago

They believe the current Supreme Court, as stacked by Trump, won't strike them down. And considering the precedent set by Texas' unconstitutional abortion law, they may be correct.

dragonwriter 5y ago

(1) virtue signaling, and/or (2) publicly testing the influence of their faction in the courts. Note that #2 is often part of schemes to create electoral success by campaigning against the courts if they produce undesired results, which (given that the membership of the courts changes over time through politics) is a means of shifting the courts as well as the rest of government. Constitutions aren't self executing, they do, in practice, what people now decide they do, and, in the most immediate but broadly influential sense in the US system, that's mostly judges.

names_are_hard 5y ago

Honest question, I'm not a lawyer: is this bill actually unconstitutional? The government is not trying to limit the rights of individuals here, as far as I can tell parents and children are allowed to own and read whatever they want under this bill. Instead one arm of the government seeks to restrict another arm of the government (schools) by requiring it honor the wishes of (the most extreme of) the populace. Edit: never mind, the article says the bill would apply to private schools as well, so I can see that not holding up. I wonder if the idea is to start with overreach and then when the backlash starts they can "compromise" by letting private schools teach what they want.

bko 5y ago
The article says that it would impact public schools and public charter schools. The charter schools receive funding from the state, so they can just deny funding unless they meet certain criteria, which they already do. And that criteria could include not giving access to certain books to children. It's tough because most people don't have a choice to pick up and move if they don't like their school board. As a parent, schools are a very important issue to me as it strikes at the autonomy you have as a parent. Many would have an issue with teaching religion in schools, and others would have an issue teaching gender studies in school. The compromise would be to limit the scope of education to the non-objectionable: science, reading, writing, math and history. Normally I would want that decided upon on the local level, but given the nature of school zoning and difficulty of moving, I wouldn't be opposed to setting guidelines on a state level.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
iudqnolq 5y ago
Public school students retain constitutional rights (although in a weaker form). > In our system, state-operated schools may not be enclaves of totalitarianism. School officials do not possess absolute authority over their students. Students… are possessed of fundamental rights which the State must respect, just as they themselves must respect their obligations to the State. In our system, students may not be regarded as closed-circuit recipients of only that which the State chooses to communicate. They may not be confined to the expression of those sentiments that are officially approved. In the absence of a specific showing of constitutionally valid reasons to regulate their speech, students are entitled to freedom of expression of their views. - Supreme Court Majority Opinion, Tinker v. Des Moines https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supreme-court-ruling-behalf-student-expression https://www.aclu.org/other/tinker-v-des-moines-landmark-supr...