4 ms·

They have tried and succeeded to regulate those as well Congress can disregard the constitution all they want, and the president can approve all he wants. Onl

They have tried and succeeded to regulate those as well Congress can disregard the constitution all they want, and the president can approve all he wants. Only the Judicial branch can actually punish violations of the constitution.

luckyno13 13y ago
And since the major decision makers of the Judicial branch are Executive appointees....
- argumentum 13y ago
  That's too simplistic an implication. Yes, they are appointed by the executive in power, but they have to be approved by congress and it is for life, which means that no single executive/legislature determines the entirety of the SCOTUS. (not saying the Court is always right, of course)
  - logfromblammo 13y ago
    They are also paid in dollars. If Bitcoin were an existential threat to the Federal Reserve banking system, I wouldn't expect them to rule in its favor. The dissenting opinion would probably be worth reading, but there's no way it wouldn't come down at least 5-4 in favor of their own paychecks.
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > and it is for life "during good behavior", actually.
    - jfeser 13y ago
      Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior.
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        > Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior. Plenty of lower court judges have been (and one Supreme Court Justice resigned in the face of impeachment, and so was certainly driven by office by the power of Congress to remove him, even if he wasn't, strictly speaking, removed.)
MichaelGG 13y ago
They have regulated religion as well. Only certain religions can use, say, peyote in ceremonies. If tonight I get a vision that mandates I must use this chemical with my followers, I don't qualify. There are other exemptions too for religion, where they decide what a real religion is. I think, for instance, conscientious objectors needed to have an approved religion. (There should be no freedom of religion explicitly; it just opens things up for abuse and silly interpretations. Freedom of speech, thought, assembly and so on should be more than enough to include religion.)
- argumentum 13y ago
  I totally agree it has been misinterpreted, I'm pretty sure the intention of Jefferson and Madison was that the government is not supposed to be able to determine what constitutes a religion in addition the right to believe & practice it* . The inclusion of the word "religion" seems a practical response to the tendency of governments to ban practices that threatened their power. * Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom (from which the 1st amendment is derived)
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Doesn't "we can't interfere with a religious practice" plus "we can't determine what is a legitimate religious practice" mean anyone can claim anything to be a religious practice? "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm engaged in the blessed sacrament of the mugging."
    - jerf 13y ago
      This is where it's worth remembering that humans are in the justice system by design. While the line is intrinsically fuzzy, one can at least agree that at one extreme a marijuana user coming up for charges who suddenly claims he has a marijuana-based religion in an attempt to get out of it isn't going to get very far. Judges are not required to be as stupid as computers interpreting the law.

luckyno13 13y ago

And since the major decision makers of the Judicial branch are Executive appointees....

argumentum 13y ago
That's too simplistic an implication. Yes, they are appointed by the executive in power, but they have to be approved by congress and it is for life, which means that no single executive/legislature determines the entirety of the SCOTUS. (not saying the Court is always right, of course)
- logfromblammo 13y ago
  They are also paid in dollars. If Bitcoin were an existential threat to the Federal Reserve banking system, I wouldn't expect them to rule in its favor. The dissenting opinion would probably be worth reading, but there's no way it wouldn't come down at least 5-4 in favor of their own paychecks.
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > and it is for life "during good behavior", actually.
  - jfeser 13y ago
    Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior.
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Interestingly, no justice has ever been removed for bad behavior. Plenty of lower court judges have been (and one Supreme Court Justice resigned in the face of impeachment, and so was certainly driven by office by the power of Congress to remove him, even if he wasn't, strictly speaking, removed.)

MichaelGG 13y ago

They have regulated religion as well. Only certain religions can use, say, peyote in ceremonies. If tonight I get a vision that mandates I must use this chemical with my followers, I don't qualify. There are other exemptions too for religion, where they decide what a real religion is. I think, for instance, conscientious objectors needed to have an approved religion. (There should be no freedom of religion explicitly; it just opens things up for abuse and silly interpretations. Freedom of speech, thought, assembly and so on should be more than enough to include religion.)

argumentum 13y ago
I totally agree it has been misinterpreted, I'm pretty sure the intention of Jefferson and Madison was that the government is not supposed to be able to determine what constitutes a religion in addition the right to believe & practice it* . The inclusion of the word "religion" seems a practical response to the tendency of governments to ban practices that threatened their power. * Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom (from which the 1st amendment is derived)
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Doesn't "we can't interfere with a religious practice" plus "we can't determine what is a legitimate religious practice" mean anyone can claim anything to be a religious practice? "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm engaged in the blessed sacrament of the mugging."
  - jerf 13y ago
    This is where it's worth remembering that humans are in the justice system by design. While the line is intrinsically fuzzy, one can at least agree that at one extreme a marijuana user coming up for charges who suddenly claims he has a marijuana-based religion in an attempt to get out of it isn't going to get very far. Judges are not required to be as stupid as computers interpreting the law.