7 ms·

If there is no legal recourse for blatant violations of the Constitution, then our rights are already gone. We should not have to rely on the generosity of thos

If there is no legal recourse for blatant violations of the Constitution, then our rights are already gone. We should not have to rely on the generosity of those in charge.

baddox 13y ago
Of course, laws don't enforce themselves, so unless you're doing it yourself, you're always relying on the "generosity" of someone with power to enforce laws.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  Well, what we're relying upon is the integrity of those gov't officials involved, especially the courts, strength of whistleblower protections, and the press. All have IMO abdicated their constitutional responsibility.
  - D9u 13y ago
    I agree... I seem to recall a time when "yellow journalism" was frowned upon, yet recently it's about all we've seen from the mainstream media.
- javert 13y ago
  In a proper system, the electorate has the power to remove and empower officials, who therefore do not have independent power. And, the electorate is "generous" (rational) enough to concede to invididual rights. The latter is actually the problem in the USA. Unlike in 1776, the intellectual leaders of the country (and therefore the populace) are anti-individual rights.
  - newnewnew 13y ago
    In 1776, only a small group of the educated elite could vote. In 2013, you don't even have to be literate.
    - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
      It's strange though. I'd bet that you could depend upon the illiterate to make a reasonable choice. I think they'd favor the candidate/party who would educate their children. It's crap like in this video where some guy apparently has no trouble finding people willing to sign a petition to "repeal the Bill of Rights" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0he0cqHH20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0he0cqHH20 PS Forgive me for the partisan nature of the video, the guy seems to maybe imply that the opposite party is less likely to fall in line so easily. I don't think that's the case at all. Just that people in general give very little attention and thought to politics.
      - mpyne 13y ago
        Could or could not depend upon the illiterate? I ask only because I'm having trouble making sense of the whole comment under the assumption that we can bet on the illiterate to make a reasonable choice when there's no trouble finding people to repeal the Bill of Rights... :-/
        fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        One way that blacks and minorities were discriminated against in the US is via mandatory literacy tests[1] before they would be allowed to vote. Blacks and poor people were treated that way because it was expected that they would vote a certain way. [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_right...
        mpyne 13y ago
        Sure, but I don't see how expecting that the illiterate would vote in a reasonable way when the literate do not (given the Bill of Rights example) is actually much less discriminatory.
      - javert 13y ago
        > I think they'd favor the candidate/party who would educate their children. Coercing other people to provide education is not the right thing to do. There are other economically reasonable ways of providing education that don't infringe rights. A nice side effect is that a market for education would, in the long run, commoditize high-quality, affordable education. The market has worked well in every industry that has remained a reasonably free market. The US K-12 education system is currently pretty bad except in well-to-do areas, and higher education is a massive bubble. After all, isn't not stealing the first thing we ought to be teaching our children?
- abecedarius 13y ago
  Back when the constitution was written it was common to prosecute criminals yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Stat...
orblivion 13y ago
Not generosity. It's all politics. If you adapt a more cynical view, you can say Edward Snowden is part of the process.

If there is no legal recourse for blatant violations of the Constitution, then our rights are already gone. We should not have to rely on the generosity of those in charge.

baddox 13y ago

Of course, laws don't enforce themselves, so unless you're doing it yourself, you're always relying on the "generosity" of someone with power to enforce laws.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
Well, what we're relying upon is the integrity of those gov't officials involved, especially the courts, strength of whistleblower protections, and the press. All have IMO abdicated their constitutional responsibility.
- D9u 13y ago
  I agree... I seem to recall a time when "yellow journalism" was frowned upon, yet recently it's about all we've seen from the mainstream media.
javert 13y ago
In a proper system, the electorate has the power to remove and empower officials, who therefore do not have independent power. And, the electorate is "generous" (rational) enough to concede to invididual rights. The latter is actually the problem in the USA. Unlike in 1776, the intellectual leaders of the country (and therefore the populace) are anti-individual rights.
- newnewnew 13y ago
  In 1776, only a small group of the educated elite could vote. In 2013, you don't even have to be literate.
  - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
    It's strange though. I'd bet that you could depend upon the illiterate to make a reasonable choice. I think they'd favor the candidate/party who would educate their children. It's crap like in this video where some guy apparently has no trouble finding people willing to sign a petition to "repeal the Bill of Rights" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0he0cqHH20 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0he0cqHH20 PS Forgive me for the partisan nature of the video, the guy seems to maybe imply that the opposite party is less likely to fall in line so easily. I don't think that's the case at all. Just that people in general give very little attention and thought to politics.
    - mpyne 13y ago
      Could or could not depend upon the illiterate? I ask only because I'm having trouble making sense of the whole comment under the assumption that we can bet on the illiterate to make a reasonable choice when there's no trouble finding people to repeal the Bill of Rights... :-/
      - fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
        One way that blacks and minorities were discriminated against in the US is via mandatory literacy tests[1] before they would be allowed to vote. Blacks and poor people were treated that way because it was expected that they would vote a certain way. [1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_rights_and_the_supreme_court_the_impossible_literacy_test_louisiana.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2013/06/28/voting_right...
        mpyne 13y ago
        Sure, but I don't see how expecting that the illiterate would vote in a reasonable way when the literate do not (given the Bill of Rights example) is actually much less discriminatory.
    - javert 13y ago
      > I think they'd favor the candidate/party who would educate their children. Coercing other people to provide education is not the right thing to do. There are other economically reasonable ways of providing education that don't infringe rights. A nice side effect is that a market for education would, in the long run, commoditize high-quality, affordable education. The market has worked well in every industry that has remained a reasonably free market. The US K-12 education system is currently pretty bad except in well-to-do areas, and higher education is a massive bubble. After all, isn't not stealing the first thing we ought to be teaching our children?
abecedarius 13y ago
Back when the constitution was written it was common to prosecute criminals yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_prosecution#United_Stat...

orblivion 13y ago

Not generosity. It's all politics. If you adapt a more cynical view, you can say Edward Snowden is part of the process.