3 ms·

> Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years

by patrec 4y ago

> Alternatively he thought it was a worthwhile policy and hoped the constitution would be amended by the time it took effect, if not, then he had multiple years of his preferred policy in place. So if I believe something I know to be blatantly illegal is "a worthwhile policy", doing it anyway is OK then, especially if I feel confident I can get away with it for a few years? Does this also apply to policies you personally don't feel to be worthwhile? > Are all of the unconstitutional ratchet laws that were passed during the Roe era political grandstanding? Trigger laws you mean? Of course it's political grandstanding, but there is still a night and day difference between having a law which explicitly says it won't come into effect until e.g. Roe vs Wade gets overturned such as here: https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#:~:text=188.017.,of%20the%20Unborn%20Child%20Act%22 https://revisor.mo.gov/main/OneSection.aspx?section=188.017#.... and just passing some law you well know is unconstitutional but trying to enforce it anyway, till the courts actually stop you a few years later.

throwaway742 4y ago
I don't think anyone ever tried to enforce it.
- patrec 4y ago
  You are obfuscating. The distinction that matters is if there is an intent to threaten people into compliance with a policy position of yours by creating a piece of legislation you know to be unconstitutional or not. It seems pretty clear to me that this was indeed the attempt. > The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members. > The Secretary of State’s office said 26% of publicly traded companies headquartered in California reported meeting the quota of women board members last year, according to a March report. As you are probably aware, it is a common legal strategy to avoid setting a precedent for some dubious legal claim you know you would lose in court but that is an effective way to coerce others. This works for patent trolls for similar reasons why it likely worked for the state of California (because a lot of times a rational actor would rather comply rather than incur the often greater costs of fighting even if a win seems near certain). It's also quite different from passing some dubious law which plainly states that it does not currently apply and why, as a symbolic act to some constituency. For what it's worth, from memory I don't think all anti-abortion legislation has been mainly symbolic like this, I think there were also cases where legislators tried to coerce people with laws they full well knew would be ruled unconstitutional.
  - throwaway742 4y ago
    It was not my intention to obfuscate. I was just trying to share information. You make good points regardless.

by patrec 4y ago

throwaway742 4y ago

I don't think anyone ever tried to enforce it.

patrec 4y ago
You are obfuscating. The distinction that matters is if there is an intent to threaten people into compliance with a policy position of yours by creating a piece of legislation you know to be unconstitutional or not. It seems pretty clear to me that this was indeed the attempt. > The Women on Boards law, also known by its bill number, SB826, called for penalties ranging from $100,000 fines for failing to report board compositions to the California secretary of state’s office to $300,000 for multiple failures to have the required number of women board members. > The Secretary of State’s office said 26% of publicly traded companies headquartered in California reported meeting the quota of women board members last year, according to a March report. As you are probably aware, it is a common legal strategy to avoid setting a precedent for some dubious legal claim you know you would lose in court but that is an effective way to coerce others. This works for patent trolls for similar reasons why it likely worked for the state of California (because a lot of times a rational actor would rather comply rather than incur the often greater costs of fighting even if a win seems near certain). It's also quite different from passing some dubious law which plainly states that it does not currently apply and why, as a symbolic act to some constituency. For what it's worth, from memory I don't think all anti-abortion legislation has been mainly symbolic like this, I think there were also cases where legislators tried to coerce people with laws they full well knew would be ruled unconstitutional.
- throwaway742 4y ago
  It was not my intention to obfuscate. I was just trying to share information. You make good points regardless.