3 ms·
In the US it would require a constitutional amendment that survives judicial review. You have better odds of winning the lottery twice in a row.
by austin-cheney 2y ago
In the US it would require a constitutional amendment that survives judicial review. You have better odds of winning the lottery twice in a row.
- hn_go_brrrrr 2y agoWhat review can any part of the judiciary do of a constitutional amendment? Even if the amendment authors explicitly say "we're doing this to enrich ourselves and screw over everyone else", once it's part of the Constitution...isn't it a done deal?
- jkaplowitz 2y agoThere is one restriction on what amendments are valid, but nothing related to this discussion. No amendment can remove a state’s equal suffrage in the Senate without its consent. Otherwise, anything goes. The judiciary can, of course, still review whether an amendment was validly proposed and ratified, and therefore whether or not it is in fact part of the constitution.
- hn_go_brrrrr 2y agoThanks, that's an interesting restriction. Where does it come from?
- java-man 2y ago"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer." -- Henry Kissinger
- sschueller 2y agoEven under Marshal Law?