4 ms·

That isn't a fully accurate summary. The constitution lists some things the government can't do, like "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood,

That isn't a fully accurate summary. The constitution lists some things the government can't do, like "no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted" and "The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States" means the government may not privilege the citizens of one state over another. The latter is called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause", and there are court cases dealing with it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privileges_and_Immunities_Clau... Definitely more court cases than for the Third Amendment (quartering soldiers in private homes), where even this link had to stretch to find a relevant movie. As another example of a restriction on government in the main body of the Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 1 said the government could not pass a law prohibiting the importation of slaves 1808 nor set a tax or duty of more than $10 on those slaves.

yieldcrv 3y ago
insightful, did it need to be fully accurate?
- eesmith 3y ago
  Should I have said something else in order to let you know you should qualify your statement somewhat?
  - yieldcrv 3y ago
    probably yeah, the person I replied to needed an ELI5 and I provided that
    - eesmith 3y ago
      That was not an ELI5 request. The first line of jcranmer's response shows how to qualify things more appropriately, in a way that doesn't come across as a lie-to-children. Even the "frequently tries to violate the first ten amendments" characterization suffers from some built-in bias error as there are far fewer entities that can sue over, say, the Supremacy Clause than the First Amendment, and something like Medellín v. Texas is more a "nuclear power plant" than a "bicycle shed", in the classic story of the law of triviality. That's likely why our foreign companion has not come across anyone online talking about the lawsuits over the various clauses in the Constitution proper.

yieldcrv 3y ago

insightful, did it need to be fully accurate?

eesmith 3y ago
Should I have said something else in order to let you know you should qualify your statement somewhat?
- yieldcrv 3y ago
  probably yeah, the person I replied to needed an ELI5 and I provided that
  - eesmith 3y ago
    That was not an ELI5 request. The first line of jcranmer's response shows how to qualify things more appropriately, in a way that doesn't come across as a lie-to-children. Even the "frequently tries to violate the first ten amendments" characterization suffers from some built-in bias error as there are far fewer entities that can sue over, say, the Supremacy Clause than the First Amendment, and something like Medellín v. Texas is more a "nuclear power plant" than a "bicycle shed", in the classic story of the law of triviality. That's likely why our foreign companion has not come across anyone online talking about the lawsuits over the various clauses in the Constitution proper.