2 ms·

Your point doesn't work they way you seem to think it does. Any power you enable/disable can also be enabled/disabled in the future. Let's say you want to ensh

Your point doesn't work they way you seem to think it does. Any power you enable/disable can also be enabled/disabled in the future. Let's say you want to enshrine the rights to free speech so you put it into the constitution. Any future government can just take it out, just completely ignore its existence, say it doesn't apply in this situation, or work around it but requiring some civil agreement. --- To put things more concretely with a different example. US Democrats never modified the filibuster to allow supreme court judges to be confirmed by 50/50+1 votes. One may think that they didn't want their political opponents to have this power (IIRC they enabled it for non-supreme court judges so this seems like a valid argument to make). However, if that was the case then it was pointless as their political opponents enabled that power.

rayiner 4y ago
> US Democrats never modified the filibuster to allow supreme court judges to be confirmed by 50/50+1 votes. That’s true but not the whole story. The parties had filibustered (or threatened to filibuster) each other’s judicial appointments for decades. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/estrada-caught-in-poisonous-war-based-on-ideology https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/estrada-caught-in-poisono.... That’s how we got Kennedy among others. But Democrats, under Harry Reid, eliminated the filibuster for all federal judgeships below the Supreme Court back in 2013. That was back in the euphoria of Obama’s 2012 reelection, when Democrats became convinced that they were favored by “demographic destiny” and republicans would never win another national election.
AnimalMuppet 4y ago
Sort of true. Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.) More generally, here's a door. It's closed. You'd like to open it and walk through it. The other side would, too. But neither side has, so far. If you leave the door closed, the other side may open it and walk through it the next time they're in power. But if you open it and walk through it, the other side definitely will walk through it when they're in power. So think carefully about whether you want to open that door.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.) That only addresses one of the four ways I listed though. (1) Any future government can just take it out - I believe you addressed this point (2) just completely ignore its existence - The government can pass other laws such as the Espionage Act [1] that restricts free speech without needing to go through the effort of an amendment. (3) say it doesn't apply in this situation - Espionage Act [1] again applies here. There's also a lot of discussion about if say the USG asks twitter to do something does it apply or because the actual restriction came from a private entity does it not? (4) work around it - Twitter again applies here (as does just buying 3rd party data to get around the other amendments). - Some argue that Snowden has a free speech right to tell/show people what he did. This doesn't apply as Snowden has a separate civil agreement (NDA) with the government. > So think carefully about whether you want to open that door. Very much agreed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917

rayiner 4y ago

> US Democrats never modified the filibuster to allow supreme court judges to be confirmed by 50/50+1 votes. That’s true but not the whole story. The parties had filibustered (or threatened to filibuster) each other’s judicial appointments for decades. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/estrada-caught-in-poisonous-war-based-on-ideology https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/estrada-caught-in-poisono.... That’s how we got Kennedy among others. But Democrats, under Harry Reid, eliminated the filibuster for all federal judgeships below the Supreme Court back in 2013. That was back in the euphoria of Obama’s 2012 reelection, when Democrats became convinced that they were favored by “demographic destiny” and republicans would never win another national election.

AnimalMuppet 4y ago

Sort of true. Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.) More generally, here's a door. It's closed. You'd like to open it and walk through it. The other side would, too. But neither side has, so far. If you leave the door closed, the other side may open it and walk through it the next time they're in power. But if you open it and walk through it, the other side definitely will walk through it when they're in power. So think carefully about whether you want to open that door.

lesuorac 4y ago
> Specifically the constitution, they not only put it in the constitution, they also made the constitution hard to change. The other side can't just change it with a 51% majority. (A future government can ignore it or say it doesn't apply, of course. But the Supreme Court may disagree... several years later.) That only addresses one of the four ways I listed though. (1) Any future government can just take it out - I believe you addressed this point (2) just completely ignore its existence - The government can pass other laws such as the Espionage Act [1] that restricts free speech without needing to go through the effort of an amendment. (3) say it doesn't apply in this situation - Espionage Act [1] again applies here. There's also a lot of discussion about if say the USG asks twitter to do something does it apply or because the actual restriction came from a private entity does it not? (4) work around it - Twitter again applies here (as does just buying 3rd party data to get around the other amendments). - Some argue that Snowden has a free speech right to tell/show people what he did. This doesn't apply as Snowden has a separate civil agreement (NDA) with the government. > So think carefully about whether you want to open that door. Very much agreed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Espionage_Act_of_1917