4 ms·
Mark, I agree. I think that the situation is this: politicians, in the short term, view the security side of the security vs. freedom debate as the best optio
by JPKab 13y ago
Mark, I agree. I think that the situation is this: politicians, in the short term, view the security side of the security vs. freedom debate as the best option. If you can stop a terrorist attack from occurring by infringing freedom, then do it. An attack will make you look much worse than a few intelligent people being upset about privacy invasion. That, sadly, is the unfortunate incentive happening here.
I think this short term benefit of always choosing security over freedom has always been too tempting for politicans and leaders not to do it. The founders recognized this, which is why the 4th Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, is supposed to be enforced by the separate branch of government that is the Judicial Branch.
But you know what? The Judicial Branch hasn't kept up with the Executive at all. The Executive Branch has huge agencies within it. The Judicial Branch is just a few judges and their staff.
Why isn't there a Judicial Branch agency that safeguards the Constitution from the other two branches?? Why couldn't this agency have a bunch of people with Top Secret clearances working for it who answer to nobody but the Supreme Court and can be contacted by Edward Snowden type whistle-blowers whenever someone feels the folks they work for are undermining the Constitution?
We need a Constitution Protection Agency that is part of the Judicial Branch. Their entire job should be going after the bastards in the other two branches who go against the constitution.
- jivatmanx 13y agoMany countries have more powerful and interventionist Supreme Courts. Notable, Germany[1] [1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court_of_Germany http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Constitutional_Court_of...
- anigbrowl 13y agoThe founders recognized this, which is why the 4th Amendment, along with the rest of the Constitution, is supposed to be enforced by the separate branch of government that is the Judicial Branch. You're saying the police power is the province of the Judicial Branch?! This is a...unique interpretation. The Constitution divides the power of the government in legislative (making law), executive (promulgating and enforcing law), and judicial (evaluation of the law). In common law jurisdictions the judicial branch does not have any kind of police power, and to the best of my knowledge never has had. I am perplexed by the number of HNers that seem to think we live in a civil law jurisdiction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
- dragonwriter 13y ago> Why isn't there a Judicial Branch agency that safeguards the Constitution from the other two branches?? Because there is no authority for such an agency in Article III, and because the type of ombudsman agency you describe would be undertaking investigations of a sort that are executive, rather than judicial, so that even if Congress attempted to create such an agency, it would be (were it Constitutional at all) an Article II agency subject to the President even if Congress gave the Judiciary the power to appoint its officers.
- jtc331 13y ago>> "We need a Constitution Protection Agency that is part of the Judicial Branch." I don't believe that a government can /ever/ effectively regulate itself--not matter how many/how strong the agencies you create. The only effective remedy is a truly informed citizenry and civil disobedience.
- Clanan 13y agoThe Executive Branch enforces, the Judicial judges. The Constitution says it quite explicitly in Articles 2 and 3. You give far too much credit to politicians. They don't think of this as security vs. freedom, they think of it as power. Power for them, power for their party, power for their people. It's a simple explanation, but it fits. Heck, research has even shown that politicians will decide based on what keeps them in office, not what they "should" do [1]. Jefferson said it best: "All men having power ought to be mistrusted. Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad." [1] Congress: The Electoral Connection by David R. Mayhew