3 ms·

> Congress is accorded very little power by the constitution, with most of it resting with "We the people" or the states. It's a brilliant way to specify power

> Congress is accorded very little power by the constitution, with most of it resting with "We the people" or the states. It's a brilliant way to specify powers to a legislative body, essentially a nation-state equivalent of Linux's "don't break userspace" directive. In both cases objections can bubble up from the bottom to the top, with courts being the equivalent of a mailing list post, "Hey, this new code breaks my use case! Fucking change it back!" In both cases one could argue about the implementation matching the aspirations of the concept. But to find the basic concept itself "bizarre" is to signal to the world that you don't understand one of the basic tenants of the constitution.

elevatedastalt 2y ago
We are talking past each other. First off, I am describing the whole scenario as bizarre, not the first sentence of my post. That much should be obvious. Second, I _do_ understand the basic tenets (not tenants, btw) of the constitution, that's why I was able to describe them in my comment. What I am trying to point out is that the Constitution as written is at odds with what a lot of people want (eg. progressives want a more authoritative state, with vaccine mandates as an example), and since they can't change the constitution easily, we have developed a complex web of quasi-legal systems in order to loophole our way around the constitution. The judiciary and legislature are complicit in this. The Commerce Clause has been expanded to basically include everything under the Sun (something that should be bothering you if you understand the basic tenets and the spirit of the constitution), which means there is very little left that the Congress cannot legislate on. However, the Congress then actually legislates on very little, sticking itself in permanent gridlock, and actual policy effectively being created ex-nihilo by federal agencies, which should ideally have only been enforcing them. This was done with the agreement of the courts, but remember they can as easily choose to disagree tomorrow.

elevatedastalt 2y ago

We are talking past each other. First off, I am describing the whole scenario as bizarre, not the first sentence of my post. That much should be obvious. Second, I _do_ understand the basic tenets (not tenants, btw) of the constitution, that's why I was able to describe them in my comment. What I am trying to point out is that the Constitution as written is at odds with what a lot of people want (eg. progressives want a more authoritative state, with vaccine mandates as an example), and since they can't change the constitution easily, we have developed a complex web of quasi-legal systems in order to loophole our way around the constitution. The judiciary and legislature are complicit in this. The Commerce Clause has been expanded to basically include everything under the Sun (something that should be bothering you if you understand the basic tenets and the spirit of the constitution), which means there is very little left that the Congress cannot legislate on. However, the Congress then actually legislates on very little, sticking itself in permanent gridlock, and actual policy effectively being created ex-nihilo by federal agencies, which should ideally have only been enforcing them. This was done with the agreement of the courts, but remember they can as easily choose to disagree tomorrow.