3 ms·

Politicians that create laws that are later deemed unconstitutional need to be removed from office. Without any repercussions they'll just keep trying until th

by snarfy 3y ago

Politicians that create laws that are later deemed unconstitutional need to be removed from office. Without any repercussions they'll just keep trying until they eventually slip one through.

autoexec 3y ago
That seems like a good way for the courts to get rid of political opponents whenever it's convenient. I think it'd be a lot less dangerous to just put a restriction on how soon something deemed unconstitutional can be proposed again. A cool down period isn't so bad, and ideally, if someone in congress keeps putting forward a bill nobody wants they'd be voted out of office by the people.
akerl_ 3y ago
I think your issue is less with politicians and more with the concept of checks and balances. A system where the executive and legislative branches are constantly at risk of dismissal at the decision of the judicial has massive problems. The government would be basically unable to attempt legislation for emerging situations, because there are often times where there just are not clear judicial standards for how the constitution applies.
qingcharles 3y ago
I don't know why there isn't some sort of legislative barrier that at least runs new laws through some body that can flag constitutional issues. Most legislators have law degrees, so you would have thought they are aware of the issues before they pass them. The worst ones are criminal laws that send people to prison for years only to be found unconstitutional much later down the road. (e.g. Chicago's gun ban)
- Mountain_Skies 3y ago
  Quite often they know the law they're passing isn't constitutional but it's good campaign optics so they do it anyway. When it is overturned by the courts, voters generally get angry with the court for overturning the law rather than with their congress critter for passing it.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    This is the same scam a lot of trial court judges run. They will find a defendant guilty at bench trial with no evidence, or massively over-sentence them, then when the appellate court reverses it they can just jump up and down and blame out-of-touch appeals court judges.

by snarfy 3y ago

Politicians that create laws that are later deemed unconstitutional need to be removed from office. Without any repercussions they'll just keep trying until they eventually slip one through.

autoexec 3y ago

That seems like a good way for the courts to get rid of political opponents whenever it's convenient. I think it'd be a lot less dangerous to just put a restriction on how soon something deemed unconstitutional can be proposed again. A cool down period isn't so bad, and ideally, if someone in congress keeps putting forward a bill nobody wants they'd be voted out of office by the people.

akerl_ 3y ago

I think your issue is less with politicians and more with the concept of checks and balances. A system where the executive and legislative branches are constantly at risk of dismissal at the decision of the judicial has massive problems. The government would be basically unable to attempt legislation for emerging situations, because there are often times where there just are not clear judicial standards for how the constitution applies.

qingcharles 3y ago

I don't know why there isn't some sort of legislative barrier that at least runs new laws through some body that can flag constitutional issues. Most legislators have law degrees, so you would have thought they are aware of the issues before they pass them. The worst ones are criminal laws that send people to prison for years only to be found unconstitutional much later down the road. (e.g. Chicago's gun ban)

Mountain_Skies 3y ago
Quite often they know the law they're passing isn't constitutional but it's good campaign optics so they do it anyway. When it is overturned by the courts, voters generally get angry with the court for overturning the law rather than with their congress critter for passing it.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  This is the same scam a lot of trial court judges run. They will find a defendant guilty at bench trial with no evidence, or massively over-sentence them, then when the appellate court reverses it they can just jump up and down and blame out-of-touch appeals court judges.