4 ms·

The federal government is one of enumerated powers; there is no limit to the things it’s not allowed to do. It would be an unending task to come up with punishm

by abtinf 2y ago

The federal government is one of enumerated powers; there is no limit to the things it’s not allowed to do. It would be an unending task to come up with punishments for the things they are forbidden from doing. The bill of rights was a huge mistake, for exactly the reason foreseen at the time of its passing: it creates massive confusion that the people only have some limited set of rights.

Dalewyn 2y ago
>it creates massive confusion that the people have some limited set of rights. Governance in the US is derived first and foremost from the People, State governments are delegated certain powers from the People, and the Federal government is delegated certain powers from the States. Furthermore, the powers that first and foremost rest with the People are understood to be granted by their Creator (who this Creator is specifically is not relevant, though it is generally assumed to be God, see "In God We Trust"). The Constitution and Declaration of Independence merely outline guarantees for those powers, no powers are explicitly granted by those documents because those powers already exist. So you are patently wrong. Not only do the People "have some limited set of rights", they have all the rights. The State and Federal governments exist at the pleasure of the People.
- abtinf 2y ago
  I think you misread what I wrote. Edited my comment to add the word “only” to clarify.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    It would indeed appear we are in agreement and saying in essence the same thing, just along different vectors.
trimethylpurine 2y ago
The bill of rights limits the power of the Legislative branch (Congress). It says that Congress shall pass no law in violation of certain rights of the people. It charges the Judicial branch with determining which laws those might be. It doesn't protect the people from the Judicial (Supreme Court) or Executive (police) branches. For example; where you're interpreting certain amendments to mean that police can't search you unreasonably, you've misunderstood. Congress shall pass no law that says the police can search you unreasonably. It's presumed that the Judicial and Executive branches, by way of that restriction on Congress, won't be able to violate those rights since the law won't be on their side. The last thing you want is a government where the judges punish congressmen, elected by the people, for passing laws. Remember, we didn't elect the judges or the policemen. We elected the congressmen. That's our only access to shape our government. Sadly, too many of us don't understand how our government works.
- notepad0x90 2y ago
  You're missing my point, it prohibits congress from passing laws, but it does not force congress to punish themselves, the executive branch or the judicial branch when a violation occurs. "don't do it" is not a law, "don't do it, or else..." is a law. in other words,it prohibits actions before the fact, but there is no consequence to violating it after the fact, other than reversal where possible.
  - trimethylpurine 2y ago
    They thought of your point when they wrote the Constitution. Giving any branch the power of punishment over any other branch implies control that forces the alignment of interests between branches. Truly countless examples of tyranny under those conditions. The whole point is that Congress can fearlessly pass laws that the judicial branch can piss on and the executive branch can choose to ignore. That gives Congress an incentive to pass decent laws while protecting them from the tyrannical overreach of say, a militant dictator, or a self serving judge. If you meant for a branch to punish its own, there are indeed consequences for upsetting Congress as a congressman, the Justices as a justice, and the federal government as an agent or serviceman. Plenty of people have received harsh penalties. It's really not uncommon.

by abtinf 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

>it creates massive confusion that the people have some limited set of rights. Governance in the US is derived first and foremost from the People, State governments are delegated certain powers from the People, and the Federal government is delegated certain powers from the States. Furthermore, the powers that first and foremost rest with the People are understood to be granted by their Creator (who this Creator is specifically is not relevant, though it is generally assumed to be God, see "In God We Trust"). The Constitution and Declaration of Independence merely outline guarantees for those powers, no powers are explicitly granted by those documents because those powers already exist. So you are patently wrong. Not only do the People "have some limited set of rights", they have all the rights. The State and Federal governments exist at the pleasure of the People.

abtinf 2y ago
I think you misread what I wrote. Edited my comment to add the word “only” to clarify.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  It would indeed appear we are in agreement and saying in essence the same thing, just along different vectors.

trimethylpurine 2y ago

The bill of rights limits the power of the Legislative branch (Congress). It says that Congress shall pass no law in violation of certain rights of the people. It charges the Judicial branch with determining which laws those might be. It doesn't protect the people from the Judicial (Supreme Court) or Executive (police) branches. For example; where you're interpreting certain amendments to mean that police can't search you unreasonably, you've misunderstood. Congress shall pass no law that says the police can search you unreasonably. It's presumed that the Judicial and Executive branches, by way of that restriction on Congress, won't be able to violate those rights since the law won't be on their side. The last thing you want is a government where the judges punish congressmen, elected by the people, for passing laws. Remember, we didn't elect the judges or the policemen. We elected the congressmen. That's our only access to shape our government. Sadly, too many of us don't understand how our government works.

notepad0x90 2y ago
You're missing my point, it prohibits congress from passing laws, but it does not force congress to punish themselves, the executive branch or the judicial branch when a violation occurs. "don't do it" is not a law, "don't do it, or else..." is a law. in other words,it prohibits actions before the fact, but there is no consequence to violating it after the fact, other than reversal where possible.
- trimethylpurine 2y ago
  They thought of your point when they wrote the Constitution. Giving any branch the power of punishment over any other branch implies control that forces the alignment of interests between branches. Truly countless examples of tyranny under those conditions. The whole point is that Congress can fearlessly pass laws that the judicial branch can piss on and the executive branch can choose to ignore. That gives Congress an incentive to pass decent laws while protecting them from the tyrannical overreach of say, a militant dictator, or a self serving judge. If you meant for a branch to punish its own, there are indeed consequences for upsetting Congress as a congressman, the Justices as a justice, and the federal government as an agent or serviceman. Plenty of people have received harsh penalties. It's really not uncommon.