6 ms·

0-strike. It should be expected that elected officials respect the constitution.

by chopin 2y ago

dustfinger 2y ago
I agree with 0-strikes. Elect officials should be under constant investigation for any form of nefarious behavior and they should be prosecuted as any citzen would be.
- sneak 2y ago
  Do you understand what would happen to the system if politicians could be prosecuted for proposing laws?
  - FpUser 2y ago
    Well, proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur. I could be prosecuted for driving if the result is death of pedestrian for example. I still drive. So why our fucking "servants" are special?
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur Congratulations, you re-invented the politburo.
      - FpUser 2y ago
        No it is an attempt to bring runaway politicians back to senses. As for politburo: HR in big corporations already does the task quite well. They just do not like to be called what they are.
    - K0balt 2y ago
      Then , presumably, you would need another, lesser court, to vet a bill before it reached the constitutional court. Unfortunately this just creates another layer of abstraction and each layer adds myriad perverse incentives for power brokering and abuse. It’s a very thorny problem that humanity has yet to solve, and is probably unsolvable until we can solve the “power opens opportunities for abuse of those powers “ problem. The only ideal form of government is the benign and just king, which of course does not exist. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
      - FpUser 2y ago
        >"The only ideal form of government is the benign and just king, which of course does not exist." This might work in very small society where said king can be quickly brought to senses if he pisses off enough people. Anything larger is fucked up no atter what we do. >"I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords." No fuck that
        K0balt 2y ago
        Meh, it’s only a matter of time, assuming that superintlligence is achieved. It will of course be sock puppeted throughout some hapless shmuck, but societies that are not effectively led by superintellignces will quickly become irrelevant footnotes in a sea of strategic superiority.
        K0balt 2y ago
        But, yeah. F that. I’m not looking forward to evolution. It’s probably going to happen anyway.
    - ruszki 2y ago
      Hungary had that. It didn't really work.
    - sneak 2y ago
      They already do that now, there's even a defined procedure for it. They just do it after the law has already passed.
  - dustfinger 2y ago
    You make a good point, I was not clear at all on the scope of my statement. I am thinking about my own countries constitution. I am not familiar with UKs constitution [1], so I don't really know if "control chat" violates the UK's constitution or not. When I said "nefarious", I was in part referring to undermining a countries constitution, as it is illegal to do so. No, I think that proposing laws that clearly undermine the constitution should be stopped immediately at the time of proposal by the constitution itself. 0-strikes for the proposal. 0-strikes here was not meant to suggest the politician be thrown in jail or anything like that. But, I agree with you in that I was unclear. Again, my statement above was poorly worded. This is what I meant by prosecuting for nefarious behavior: It is my belief that government behavior would be better kept in check if elect officials were under constant investigation for criminal acts. Society should have gauntness that their nation is being run by good actors. Those running our country should be legally obligated to be working towards making the society that they serve thrive, not using it as a platform for organized crime, influencing the outcomes of their personal investments, or traitorous behavior like ruining a nations economy to empower another nation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
  - exe34 2y ago
    politicians don't propose law in the EU. appointed bureaucrats do. politicians get to vote on them eventually, but it'll get passed one way or another.
  - mro_name 2y ago
    we germans learn in history lessons at school what can happen once a democratic process abolishes enough fundamental rights.
    - sneak 2y ago
      Yeah, meanwhile, you can't buy video games with too much blood in them now because the censorship ship has sailed. Banning the nazi salute and certain types of ideological publishing is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It doesn't fix the issue, and it involves a lot of collateral damage. Germany has in fact abolished fundamental rights (i.e. free expression) in response to collective fear and guilt about WW2. It's an unforced own goal, just like the USA did to itself after 9/11. The worst possible response. It harms only those who shouldn't be harmed; German nazis will still be nazis quietly in basements, and everyone else in Germany who isn't a nazi is subject to media censorship. It's nonsense.
      - mro_name 2y ago
        that's not what I am talking about. I talk about that today it's not allowed to abolish democracy which - believe it or not - was allowed and happened 1933. See e.g. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  I mean nefarious behaviour, sure, but idk if you mean in any context or just this specific one. That said, if they commit illegal acts they should be tried and convicted like any other civilians, if not with a more severe punishment because they are our leaders that set the example.
  - dustfinger 2y ago
    I attempted to clarify my statement in my response to sneak. I am concerned that if there are people in government acting nefariously, these bad actors are free to continue unchallenged. If that is what is happening, then I suspect that this flaw exists in many democracies, if not all of them. I am by no means an expert in government, but I believe that with the way things are currently structured those leading our nations are operating without sufficient checks and balances to ensure their good intent. I am talking about investigating every government leader with a utility to ensure they are acting favorably with respect to peace, order, and good government in perpetuity.
klausa 2y ago
Which constitution are you referring to?
jdasdf 2y ago
This. Anyone that voted for a law that is later struck down committed an illegal act, and should be liable for it.
- Cthulhu_ 2y ago
  This is a shortsighted kneejerk take to be honest. What about laws you agree with that get rescinded? What if a law that protects your privacy gets struck down, do you think the privacy advocates that made it happen in the first place "committed an illegal act and should be liable for it"?

0-strike. It should be expected that elected officials respect the constitution.

by chopin 2y ago

0-strike. It should be expected that elected officials respect the constitution.

I agree with 0-strikes. Elect officials should be under constant investigation for any form of nefarious behavior and they should be prosecuted as any citzen would be.

sneak 2y ago
Do you understand what would happen to the system if politicians could be prosecuted for proposing laws?
- FpUser 2y ago
  Well, proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur. I could be prosecuted for driving if the result is death of pedestrian for example. I still drive. So why our fucking "servants" are special?
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > proposed laws would need to pass constitutionality test done by some constitutional court stuffed by legal field experts. If passed, no prosecution can occur Congratulations, you re-invented the politburo.
    - FpUser 2y ago
      No it is an attempt to bring runaway politicians back to senses. As for politburo: HR in big corporations already does the task quite well. They just do not like to be called what they are.
  - K0balt 2y ago
    Then , presumably, you would need another, lesser court, to vet a bill before it reached the constitutional court. Unfortunately this just creates another layer of abstraction and each layer adds myriad perverse incentives for power brokering and abuse. It’s a very thorny problem that humanity has yet to solve, and is probably unsolvable until we can solve the “power opens opportunities for abuse of those powers “ problem. The only ideal form of government is the benign and just king, which of course does not exist. I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
    - FpUser 2y ago
      >"The only ideal form of government is the benign and just king, which of course does not exist." This might work in very small society where said king can be quickly brought to senses if he pisses off enough people. Anything larger is fucked up no atter what we do. >"I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords." No fuck that
      - K0balt 2y ago
        Meh, it’s only a matter of time, assuming that superintlligence is achieved. It will of course be sock puppeted throughout some hapless shmuck, but societies that are not effectively led by superintellignces will quickly become irrelevant footnotes in a sea of strategic superiority.
        K0balt 2y ago
        But, yeah. F that. I’m not looking forward to evolution. It’s probably going to happen anyway.
  - ruszki 2y ago
    Hungary had that. It didn't really work.
  - sneak 2y ago
    They already do that now, there's even a defined procedure for it. They just do it after the law has already passed.
- dustfinger 2y ago
  You make a good point, I was not clear at all on the scope of my statement. I am thinking about my own countries constitution. I am not familiar with UKs constitution [1], so I don't really know if "control chat" violates the UK's constitution or not. When I said "nefarious", I was in part referring to undermining a countries constitution, as it is illegal to do so. No, I think that proposing laws that clearly undermine the constitution should be stopped immediately at the time of proposal by the constitution itself. 0-strikes for the proposal. 0-strikes here was not meant to suggest the politician be thrown in jail or anything like that. But, I agree with you in that I was unclear. Again, my statement above was poorly worded. This is what I meant by prosecuting for nefarious behavior: It is my belief that government behavior would be better kept in check if elect officials were under constant investigation for criminal acts. Society should have gauntness that their nation is being run by good actors. Those running our country should be legally obligated to be working towards making the society that they serve thrive, not using it as a platform for organized crime, influencing the outcomes of their personal investments, or traitorous behavior like ruining a nations economy to empower another nation. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kin...
- exe34 2y ago
  politicians don't propose law in the EU. appointed bureaucrats do. politicians get to vote on them eventually, but it'll get passed one way or another.
- mro_name 2y ago
  we germans learn in history lessons at school what can happen once a democratic process abolishes enough fundamental rights.
  - sneak 2y ago
    Yeah, meanwhile, you can't buy video games with too much blood in them now because the censorship ship has sailed. Banning the nazi salute and certain types of ideological publishing is treating the symptoms and not the disease. It doesn't fix the issue, and it involves a lot of collateral damage. Germany has in fact abolished fundamental rights (i.e. free expression) in response to collective fear and guilt about WW2. It's an unforced own goal, just like the USA did to itself after 9/11. The worst possible response. It harms only those who shouldn't be harmed; German nazis will still be nazis quietly in basements, and everyone else in Germany who isn't a nazi is subject to media censorship. It's nonsense.
    - mro_name 2y ago
      that's not what I am talking about. I talk about that today it's not allowed to abolish democracy which - believe it or not - was allowed and happened 1933. See e.g. https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/gg/art_9.html
Cthulhu_ 2y ago
I mean nefarious behaviour, sure, but idk if you mean in any context or just this specific one. That said, if they commit illegal acts they should be tried and convicted like any other civilians, if not with a more severe punishment because they are our leaders that set the example.
- dustfinger 2y ago
  I attempted to clarify my statement in my response to sneak. I am concerned that if there are people in government acting nefariously, these bad actors are free to continue unchallenged. If that is what is happening, then I suspect that this flaw exists in many democracies, if not all of them. I am by no means an expert in government, but I believe that with the way things are currently structured those leading our nations are operating without sufficient checks and balances to ensure their good intent. I am talking about investigating every government leader with a utility to ensure they are acting favorably with respect to peace, order, and good government in perpetuity.

klausa 2y ago

Which constitution are you referring to?

jdasdf 2y ago

This. Anyone that voted for a law that is later struck down committed an illegal act, and should be liable for it.

Cthulhu_ 2y ago
This is a shortsighted kneejerk take to be honest. What about laws you agree with that get rescinded? What if a law that protects your privacy gets struck down, do you think the privacy advocates that made it happen in the first place "committed an illegal act and should be liable for it"?