3 ms·

The oath says "support and defend the Constitution". That doesn't make it their job to interpret the constitution.

rfrey 2y ago
Your original post said "It's not the job of the lawmakers to follow the constitution". To my ear, "follow" is a lot closer to "support and defend" than it is to "interpret".
SllX 2y ago
That’s not what you said. This is what you said: > It's not the job of the lawmakers to follow the constitution. It is exactly their job to both follow and interpret the Constitution in executing their function as legislators and upholding their oath of office. You only go to Court when there is a case or controversy concerning the law, sometimes implicating the Constitution, but willfully passing a law which you know to be unconstitutional is breaking your oath of office, as is signing in such a law if you are the Governor of California or POTUS.
- lilyball 2y ago
  > willfully passing a law which you know to be unconstitutional This is the sticking point. Do they know for a fact that it's unconstitutional? If they do then I agree they're in the wrong. My argument here is that they don't know it's unconstitutional, that they have some hope that it will manage to pass judicial review, or at least that judicial review will define the exact boundaries of how the constitution applies to the framing of this law and so they can come away with a modified law that goes right up to those boundaries. All that said, it's a shitty law, and I'd rather get pissed at the lawmakers for attempting to pass this law because of what it's trying to do rather than arguments about constitutionality.
  - SllX 2y ago
    A good litmus test is if you are questioning whether a law is constitutional, you shouldn’t vote in favor of it. That’s upholding your oath. Getting it wrong isn’t breaking your oath, not caring whether it breaks your oath and putting pedal to the metal anyway is. The Constitution really only works when all parties involved are doing that much, which is why it’s egregious when a POTUS is like “yeah this is probably unconstitutional but I’m gonna sign it anyway and see what the courts say”. That’s the mark of a bad President that doesn’t care about his oath. So yeah, when all else fails, it does end up coming down the courts, and under our own existing laws it shouldn’t be that way because the courts can get it wrong too and sometimes have. So I’m with you that it’s a shitty law regardless of constitutionality, but it’s extra shitty when it comes with willful oathbreaking. They get away with it largely because our fellow Californians don’t give a shit.

Your original post said "It's not the job of the lawmakers to follow the constitution". To my ear, "follow" is a lot closer to "support and defend" than it is to "interpret".

SllX 2y ago

That’s not what you said. This is what you said: > It's not the job of the lawmakers to follow the constitution. It is exactly their job to both follow and interpret the Constitution in executing their function as legislators and upholding their oath of office. You only go to Court when there is a case or controversy concerning the law, sometimes implicating the Constitution, but willfully passing a law which you know to be unconstitutional is breaking your oath of office, as is signing in such a law if you are the Governor of California or POTUS.

lilyball 2y ago
> willfully passing a law which you know to be unconstitutional This is the sticking point. Do they know for a fact that it's unconstitutional? If they do then I agree they're in the wrong. My argument here is that they don't know it's unconstitutional, that they have some hope that it will manage to pass judicial review, or at least that judicial review will define the exact boundaries of how the constitution applies to the framing of this law and so they can come away with a modified law that goes right up to those boundaries. All that said, it's a shitty law, and I'd rather get pissed at the lawmakers for attempting to pass this law because of what it's trying to do rather than arguments about constitutionality.
- SllX 2y ago
  A good litmus test is if you are questioning whether a law is constitutional, you shouldn’t vote in favor of it. That’s upholding your oath. Getting it wrong isn’t breaking your oath, not caring whether it breaks your oath and putting pedal to the metal anyway is. The Constitution really only works when all parties involved are doing that much, which is why it’s egregious when a POTUS is like “yeah this is probably unconstitutional but I’m gonna sign it anyway and see what the courts say”. That’s the mark of a bad President that doesn’t care about his oath. So yeah, when all else fails, it does end up coming down the courts, and under our own existing laws it shouldn’t be that way because the courts can get it wrong too and sometimes have. So I’m with you that it’s a shitty law regardless of constitutionality, but it’s extra shitty when it comes with willful oathbreaking. They get away with it largely because our fellow Californians don’t give a shit.