7 ms·
I feel like this was a mistake: “must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public hea
by BirAdam 11mo ago
I feel like this was a mistake: “must be limited to those demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling government interest in public health or safety”
So, public health or safety, in the hands of a tyrant how broad can that get? I imagine that by enshrining this in law, Montana has accidentally given a future leader the ability to confiscate all computing technology.
- ralusek 11mo agoIt appears to be a law that is simply adding restrictions to what the state can do (like the first amendment, the best sorts of laws IMO). It’s not granting people limited rights. Any existing rights people had under the fourth or first example, for example, are still in place, this just sounds like further restrictions on the state.
- terminalshort 11mo agoWhat are rights besides restrictions on the state?
- mpalmer 11mo agoThis is how laws are written. A court would determine whether the state is abusing or violating this public safety carve-out.
- zbrozek 11mo agoAnd this exact method is how we got minimum lot sizes, setbacks, FAR, and a burgeoning affordability and homelessness crisis. It's a blank check.
- mpalmer 11mo agoYes, the ability to litigate is key. Only a few can afford it.
- shortrounddev2 11mo agoSeems like a lazy way to write a law. Basically just gives any governor whose party controls the supreme court a blank check. The law should qualify what public safety means
- kingkawn 11mo agoYou want discretion for judges so that they can respond to the problems of their era wisely rather than rigidly applying the ideas of another time without nuance
- jfengel 11mo agoUnless those judges themselves have a fondness for an imaginary "great" time, and will apply their reasoning in a way that just happens to fit their ideology. Law is either rigorous or it's not. When I'm told that the law is against me but gosh darn it the law is the law, I grow resentful of the "discretion" reserved for some but not others.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- kingkawn 11mo agoThere’s no eliminating humans from human civilization. No risk no fun.
- jfengel 11mo agoWhat drives me nuts is the way lawyers (of all stripes) keep praising "legal reasoning". None of it strikes me as even vaguely rigorous. I'm not a lawyer so I could well be completely off base here. But if my perception is correct, I would much rather they admit that it's fundamentally up to someone's gut feeling. That's more honest than telling me that a bit of reasoning is airtight when it's not.
- lanyard-textile 11mo ago
- noir_lord 11mo agoIn the hands of a tyrant all laws can be arbitrary/ignored because that is a key part of what makes them a tyrant. Almost every part of government is in isolation a single point of failure to someone with a tyrannical streak, it's why most democracies end up with multiple houses/bodies and courts - supposed to act as checks and balances. So this law wouldn't alter the outcome in the slightest.
- raw_anon_1111 11mo agoHow has that been working in the US where both the legislation branch and judicial branch have willingly given their authority to the executive branch?
- noir_lord 11mo agoYou would think the fact that I put "supposed to act as checks and balances." in my post would answer that but apparently not.
- SV_BubbleTime 11mo agoYes. That has been a problem. Several states outright ignored the scotus Bruen decision.
- Retric 11mo agoYea a Supreme Court ruling 110 years after a law passed only for them to reverse course 2 years later. Surely that’s based on the constitution and nothing else.
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- SV_BubbleTime 11mo agoIs your argument that you should only listen to Supreme Court judgments that you agree with? Or is it that they have some settling in time before you need to actually pay attention to them?
- SilverElfin 11mo agoAgree - it feels a lot like emergency measures, which are broadly abused at every level of the government and by both major parties.
- BirAdam 11mo agoYeah, so much that my feel is this law basically gives the state of Montana the right to confiscate computing equipment rather than the right to of the owner to have and use it. I understand that the intent of those involved in passing this was to protect civilians from the state, but such a broad and unspecific carve out just makes me think that a radical from either side could paint with quite a broad brush. “Who’s the terrorist today?” Kind of thing.
- catlover76 11mo ago[dead]
- captainkrtek 11mo agoDo tyrants care about law? They find ways to work around law, write new law, and rule by decree. Democracy is largely following norms and tradition of respecting the people and laws, but it can also be ignored when those in power shift.
- dvntsemicolon 11mo agoI see your point, but a tyrant doesn't need to follow laws in order to do tyranical things
- ethin 11mo agoThis phrasing is not by itself unusual; this almost mirrors the requirements for strict scrutiny.
- singron 11mo agoThis is essentially the "strict scrutiny" standard, which governments have to achieve in order to violate your strongest constitutional rights (e.g. 1A). If you don't spell it out, then it might be delegated to a lower standard like "rational basis".
- simplulo 11mo agoCorrect.
- simplulo 11mo agoI know what you mean, but this is actually as strong as a protection in Montana (and probably elsewhere) gets. The burden is high. Montana's RTC bill had strong and competent libertarian input.