3 ms·

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.

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.

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.