4 ms·

One of the things I don't really understand about the way laws work here in the US is when something like this happens. We will declare something unconstitutio

One of the things I don't really understand about the way laws work here in the US is when something like this happens. We will declare something unconstitutional and then its like "okay lets form a committee to make sure it doesn't happen again...whats that you say? What the NSA is doing is secret and we can't monitor it? Okay, well then just go on with what you're doing, I assume you're following the constitution now" I mean, I feel like following the constitution is probably the most important thing we can encourage, and its basically like "meh, lets hope they stop violating the constitution". I simply do not get it. Priority #1 should be making sure that the NSA is following the constitution. There is 0 point in fighting foreign wars or anything like that until this is fixed. The NSA's budget should be reduced to 0 until there is 100% proof this has stopped.

Cowen 13y ago
There's nothing in the US legal code that creates consequences for disobeying the judicial branch's judgement. Obeying them is a strong suggestion, and disobeying could conceivably be used as evidence in an impeachment trial, but that's about it. This isn't a new issue either. It's over 150 years old. Andrew Jackson didn't even get a slap on the wrist for not enforcing the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia.
- thematt 13y ago
  What about contempt of court?
  - jeffasinger 13y ago
    Who enforces that?
    - Tangaroa 13y ago
      The civil police force.
- saraid216 13y ago
  > This isn't a new issue either. Actually, it's one of the fundamental checks and balances. The judiciary has no executive power. The reason a conviction in court sucks for the defendant is because the executive branch actors enforce that conviction by taking the convict to jail.
  - javajosh 13y ago
    Ultimate authority rests with the executive because they have the guns.
    - saraid216 13y ago
      The executive has the guns because that's how it was designed.
    - dredmorbius 13y ago
      However the legislative branch pays for those guns (and the men who hold them, the ammunition that goes in them, the vehicles which transport them, and the fuel which powers those). It's called checks and balances for a reason. There is no center of power, though the balance may shift over time (and yes, the executive has a great deal of power).
chris_mahan 13y ago
The people who vote for the NSA budget don't know what they are voting for, because the NSA activities that the budget is paying for are State Secrets. Also, of course, these activities are Very Important so America can win the War on Terror and eliminate Al Qaeda and all the other Evil People in the whole World, so, as a Senator, you would find yourself hard-pressed for raising your re-election campaign funds if you were to "side with the terrorists" and failed to approve the budget for these secret activities.
- pionar 13y ago
  Oh, they know. Legislators have pretty high clearance.
  - dailyrorschach 13y ago
    They don't actually. A member of Congress can't just ask the head of the NSA to tell them what's going on and expect the complete details. Each house has a Select Intelligence Committee who do in fact receive briefs on these subjects from time to time. The Speaker of the House and Minority Leader in the House serve as ex officio members of the House committee and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate serve as ex officio members of the Senate committee. When it comes to these votes on these issues where intelligence is discussed, members look to follow the lead of members of this committee for guidance on how to vote, as these members are barred from divulging the exact contents of the meeting. (Though it may be argued they could easily enter it into the public record and have immunity via the speech and debate clause.) This committee is also supposed to exercise oversight but that's often problematic because... Once the Congress has passed these laws, the Executive Branch will often interpet the laws as they see fit, and because of the clandestine nature of all of this, there is currently no mechanism by which they must or do inform the committee on how they've interpreted the law. There is very little Congressional oversight of clandestine activities, and this has been the case historically except for very rare occasions where the lid has been blown off so to speak and public hearings were held. The oversight here is the weakest link and in the absence of strong oversight, people in power will continue to expand and condense their power in Washington as history has shown.
ChuckMcM 13y ago
In theory, the Congress achieves this power by their ability to approve appointments by the President. However they have greatly diminished the impact of that power by allowing partisan politics to pollute the business of vetting someone for competence.

Cowen 13y ago

There's nothing in the US legal code that creates consequences for disobeying the judicial branch's judgement. Obeying them is a strong suggestion, and disobeying could conceivably be used as evidence in an impeachment trial, but that's about it. This isn't a new issue either. It's over 150 years old. Andrew Jackson didn't even get a slap on the wrist for not enforcing the Supreme Court's ruling in Worcester v. Georgia.

thematt 13y ago
What about contempt of court?
- jeffasinger 13y ago
  Who enforces that?
  - Tangaroa 13y ago
    The civil police force.
saraid216 13y ago
> This isn't a new issue either. Actually, it's one of the fundamental checks and balances. The judiciary has no executive power. The reason a conviction in court sucks for the defendant is because the executive branch actors enforce that conviction by taking the convict to jail.
- javajosh 13y ago
  Ultimate authority rests with the executive because they have the guns.
  - saraid216 13y ago
    The executive has the guns because that's how it was designed.
  - dredmorbius 13y ago
    However the legislative branch pays for those guns (and the men who hold them, the ammunition that goes in them, the vehicles which transport them, and the fuel which powers those). It's called checks and balances for a reason. There is no center of power, though the balance may shift over time (and yes, the executive has a great deal of power).

chris_mahan 13y ago

The people who vote for the NSA budget don't know what they are voting for, because the NSA activities that the budget is paying for are State Secrets. Also, of course, these activities are Very Important so America can win the War on Terror and eliminate Al Qaeda and all the other Evil People in the whole World, so, as a Senator, you would find yourself hard-pressed for raising your re-election campaign funds if you were to "side with the terrorists" and failed to approve the budget for these secret activities.

pionar 13y ago
Oh, they know. Legislators have pretty high clearance.
- dailyrorschach 13y ago
  They don't actually. A member of Congress can't just ask the head of the NSA to tell them what's going on and expect the complete details. Each house has a Select Intelligence Committee who do in fact receive briefs on these subjects from time to time. The Speaker of the House and Minority Leader in the House serve as ex officio members of the House committee and the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the Senate serve as ex officio members of the Senate committee. When it comes to these votes on these issues where intelligence is discussed, members look to follow the lead of members of this committee for guidance on how to vote, as these members are barred from divulging the exact contents of the meeting. (Though it may be argued they could easily enter it into the public record and have immunity via the speech and debate clause.) This committee is also supposed to exercise oversight but that's often problematic because... Once the Congress has passed these laws, the Executive Branch will often interpet the laws as they see fit, and because of the clandestine nature of all of this, there is currently no mechanism by which they must or do inform the committee on how they've interpreted the law. There is very little Congressional oversight of clandestine activities, and this has been the case historically except for very rare occasions where the lid has been blown off so to speak and public hearings were held. The oversight here is the weakest link and in the absence of strong oversight, people in power will continue to expand and condense their power in Washington as history has shown.

ChuckMcM 13y ago

In theory, the Congress achieves this power by their ability to approve appointments by the President. However they have greatly diminished the impact of that power by allowing partisan politics to pollute the business of vetting someone for competence.