3 ms·
This doesnt track. The US government cant write whatever laws they want. They are actually constrained by the powers granted by the states via the constitution
by nonethewiser 4y ago
This doesnt track. The US government cant write whatever laws they want. They are actually constrained by the powers granted by the states via the constitution and protected by the judiciary. A new law taxing churches they dont like would not survive.
- Kbelicius 4y ago> Churches (cults, religion) all over the world are tax-exempted
- wizzwizz4 4y agoThis doesn't track. What's considered "constitutional" in the US varies as the wind blows. Such a law would not survive today, but in 50 years' time, who can say?
- nonethewiser 4y agoIt does not. Interpretation can vary but thats not the same thing.
- reuben364 3y ago'can be considered "constitutional"' is a function of the persons interpretation. Is it not the case that whether a law passes is affected by the interpretations of 'can be considered "constitutional"' by the powers that can influence the outcome.
- wizzwizz4 3y agohttps://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards-in-robes https://pluralistic.net/2023/03/25/consequentialism/#dotards... > For many Constitutional law scholars, last years' Dobbs decision on abortion rights at the Supreme Court came as a dismaying shock, because it showed conclusively that conlaw wasn't a realm of ideologically consistent intellectual foment, but rather, a matter of politics. > Writing for Credit Slips, the finance law scholar Adam Levitin admits to feeling a bit of schadenfreude in that moment. The "blue collar" law scholars in "grubby" banking and money fields have always treated the conlaw set as "slightly clueless toffs"
- junon 3y agoWhilst true, that doesn't negate my point.